Skip to main content

Full text of "The Text of the New Testament"

See other formats

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http : //books . google . com/ 

f^atbarli Btoinlts Scijool 





d Church Text hooks— Oontinued. 

The Apostles' Creed. The Rev." H. F. D. Mackay, M.A., 
Merton College, and Pusey House, Oxford. 

Mediaeval Church Missions. C. R. Beazley, M.A., 
Fellow of Merton College, Oxford. 

The Church, its Ministty and Authority. 

The Rev. Darwell Stone, M. A., Principal of the Missionary 
College, Dorchester. 

A History of the Church to 3215. The Rev. H. N* Bate, 
M.A., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. 

An Elementary Church History of Great Britain. 

The Rev. W. H. Hutton, B.D., Fellow, Tutor, Precentor 
and Librarian of St. John's College, Oxford. [Published, 

The Reformation on the Continent. 

The Rev. B. J. Kidd, RD., Kcble College, Oxford; Tutor 
of Non-Collegiate Students, Oxford. 

The Reformation in Great Britain. 

H. O. Wakeman, M.A., late Fellow of All Souls' College. 
Oxford, and the Rev. Leighton Pullan, M.A. 

A History of the Rites of the Church. 

The Rev. F. E. Brightman, M.A., Pusey House. Oxford. 

The History of the Book of Common Prayer. 

The Rev. J. H. Maude, M.A, Fellow, Dean and Lecturer 
of Hertford College, Oxford. [Published, 

The Articles of the Church of England. 

The Rev. B. J. Kidd, B.D., Keble College, Oxford. 3 vols. 
Vol. /. , ArHcles I. - VIII. [Published. 

Vol. II., Articles IX.^XXXIX. [Published. 

This may also be had complete in One Volume, 2S. 

A Manual for Confirmation. The Rev. T. Field, M.A., 
Warden of Radley College. 

The Holy Communion. The Rev. B. W. Randolph, M.A., 
Principal of Ely Theological College, and Hon. Canon of 

The Fntufe State. The Rev. S. C. Gayford, M.A, 
Vice- Principal of Cuddcsdon Theological College. 

London : Rivingtons, 34 King Street, Covent Garden. 

Small Fcap, %vo. is. each. 

General Editor, The Rev. LEIGHTON PULLAN, 
M.A,, Fellow of St, John^s College, and Lecturer in Theo- 
logy at St, Johris^ Oriel, and Queeris Colleges, Oxford, 

A Comprehensive Series of Cheap and Scholarly Manuals 
dealing with the more important branches of Religious 

The Reformation in Great Britain. 

H. O. Wakeman, M.A., Late Fellow of All Souls 
College, Oxford, and The Rev. Leighton Pullan 
M.A. [Just Published. 

The Text of the New Testament 

The Rev. K. Lake, M.A., Curate of St, Mary the 
Virgin, Oxford, [Just Published. 

Outlines of Old Testament Theology. 

The Rev. C. F. Burney, M. A., Lecturer in Hebrew at 
and Librarian of St.Johiis College, Oxford, 

'Compresses an astonishing amount of information into a re- 
markably small space. If manuals of this size are needed for the 
purposes of elementary teaching, it is well that the compilation of 
them should be intrusted, as in the present case, to thoroughly 
competent hands.' — Literature. 

*The author has done his work well, and has provided a hand- 
book which may be of good service to teachers.' 

Scottish Guardian, 

*Is very important and answers a great need. ... He is 
thoroughly constructive^ and shows how edifying and helpful the 
new science of the Old Testament really is. We know of no 
other book at a popular price doing the same thing.' 

University Correspondent, 

London : Rivingtons, 34 King Street, Covent Garden. 


The Articles of the Church of England. 

In Two Volumes. 

Vol. I. — History and Explanation of Articles i.-viii. 

Vol. II. — Explanation of Articles ix-xxxix. 

May also be had in One Volume, 2j. 
The Rev. B. J. Kidd, B.D., Keble College^ Oxford. 

* It supplies exactly what is wanted for beginners.* — Guardian. 

* It is a concise, lucid, handy manual on the subject, with an 
excellent and fairly stated historical Preface.* — Church Review. 

* It is at once brief, concise, and erudite.* — Scotsman, 

* Those who wish for a thoroughly trustworthy exposition should 
read Mr. ICidd's book,* — Westminster Review. 

*Mr. Kidd V gives a truly Catholic and lucid explanation of the 
Articles.* — Church Review. 

* It is eminently suitable for lending or for giving away to those 
of some education who are often at a loss for a convenient summary 
of theology, and who cannot consult the larger treatises with 
profit.* — Scottish Guardian. 

* In this also the scholastic part is thoroughly well done. * 


The Hebrew Prophets. The Rev. R. L. Ottley, 

M.A., Rector of Winterboume Bassett. 

* Has given us what it must have been hard to do in so small 
a compass — a really readable book.* — Guardian. 

' Combines in a readable form all the best established results of 
criticism of this century.' — Church Gazette. 

* Mr. Ottley is a scholar, and knows scholarship. He uses the very 
best authorities, and uses the right parts of them. He writes clearly 
and orderly also. It is an excellent start.* — Expository Times. 

Early Christian Doctrine. 

The Rev. Leighton Pullan, M.A. 

* An admirable sketch.' — Guardian. 

* An excellent summary, written plainly and simply.' 

Church Times. 

* They are just the sort of book which every educated man ought 
to read who takes the slightest interest in religious thought, but 
has not time to specialise * — Literature. 

* A connected and remarkably lucid sketch.' — Glasgow Herald. 

* Theological students owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Pullan for 
this admirable little work.* — Oxford Magazine. 

London ; Rivingtons, 34 King Street, Covent Garden. 


An Elementary History of the Church in Great 

Britain. The Rev. W. H. HUTTON, B.D., Fellow 
and Tutor of SI, JohrCs College^ Oxford^ Examining 
Chaplain to the Bishop of Ely, 

* If the clergy are wise, they will get it into wide circulation.* — 
Church Times. 

* The book is well informed and well written.* — Glasgow Herald, 

* Mr. Hutton has very happily combined the scholarly and the 
popular elements in his narrative.' — Church Quarterly Review, 

' We do not purpose, with regard to these works of Mr. Maude 
and Mr. Hutton, to say much more than that they are quite 
worthy of this excellent series. ... It can hardly be possible to 
do the thing better at the price than it is done with Mr. Hutton.* 
University Correspondent, 

* This may be described as a thoroughly satisfactory volume in 
an excellent series. It is quite the best ** Elementary " History of 
the Church in this land that we have.* — Guardian. 

The History of the Book of Common Prayer. 

The Rev. J. H. Maude, M.A., Examining Chaplain 
to the Bishop of St, Albans. 

* We know of no manual which provides an intelligent know- 
ledge of the Prayer-Book in a more concise, accurate, and 
scholarly manner Uian the little book before us. Many who 
have neither the time nor inclination to read a lengthy Text- 
book may be persuaded to give their attention to this one.* — 
School Guardian. 

*So far as we know, there is no ** History of the Book of 
Common Prayer*' more full of information or more trustworthy 
than that which the ready pen of the Rev. J. H. Maude has given 
as. . . . We have said enough to prove our appreciation of Mr. 
Maude's manual ; we are confident that it will take a permanent 
place in elementary Church literature.' — Church Times. 

'May be highly commended.' — Canadian Churchman. 

*Mr. Maude has not only given a brief history, but he has 
succeeded in making it interesting.' — Anglo- Catholic. 

London : Rivingtons, 34 King Street, Covent Garden. 

Oxford Church Text Books 

The Hebrew Prophets. The Rev. R. L. Ottley, M. A., Rector of 
Winterbourne Bassett; formerly Principal of Pusey House, Oxford. 

^ [PublisJUd 

Outlines of Old Testament Theology. The Rev. C. F. Burney, 
M. A. , Lecturer in Hebrew at St. John's Coiiege, Oxford. [Published 

Old Testament History. W. C. Roberts, B.A., St. John's College. 

Oxford. [In preparation. 

An Introduction to the New Testament. 

The Rev. Lbighton Pullan, M.A [In preparation. 

The Text of the New Testament. The Rev. K. Lake. M. A. . 

Curate of St. Mary the Virgin, Oxford. [FubUshed. 

The TeacWng of St. Paul. The Rev. E. W. M. O. de la Hey, 

M . A, Tutor of Keble College, Oxford. [In preparation. 

A Comparative History of Religions. 

The Rev. Lbighton Pullan, M.A [In preparation. 

Evidences of Christianity. The Rev. L. Ragg. M.A. 

Warden of the Bishop's Hostel, Lincoln. [In preparation. 

Early Christian Doctrine. 

The Rev. Lbighton Pullan, M.A. [Published. 

The Apostles'' Creed. The Rev. H. F. D. Mackay, M.A., 

Pusey House, Oxford- [In preparation. 

The Church, its Ministxy and Authority. The Rev. Darwell 
Stonb, M.A., Principal of the Missionary College, Dorchester. 

A History of the Rites of the Church. 

The Rev. F. E. Brightman, M.A., Pusey House, Oxford. [In preparation. 
A History of the Church to 3215. The Rev. H. N. Bate, M.A., 

Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. [In preparation. 

Medieval Church Missions. C. R. Beazlby, M.A. 

Fellow of Mertoo College, Oxford. [In preparation. 

An Elementaxy Church History of Great Britain. The Rev. W. H. 
HoTTONjB.D., Fellow and TutorofSt. John's College, Oxford. [Published. 

A History of the Church in the United States of America. 
The Right Rev. Lbighton Colbman, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of 
Delaware. [In Preparation. 

The Reformation on the Continent. The Rev. B. J. Kidd, B.D., 
Keble College, Tutor of Non-Collegiate Students, Oxford. [In preparation. 

The Reformation in Great Britain. H. O. Wakbman, M.A., and 
the Rev. Lbighton Pullan, M.A. [Published. 

The History of the Book of Common Prayer. The Rev. J. H. Maude. 

M.A, Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of St. Albans. [Published. 

Instructions in Christian Doctrine. The Rev. V. S. S. Coles, 

M.A, Principal of Pusey House, Oxfotd. [In preparation. 

A Manual for Confirmation. By the Rev. T. Field, M.A.. 

Warden of Radley College. [In preparation. 

The Articles of the Church of England. In Two Volumes. 

The Rev. B. J. Kidd, B.D. This may also be had in One Volume, s«. 
Vol. L— Articles i.-viii. Vol. II.— Articles ix.-xxxix. [Published. 
The Futiu-e State. The Rev. S. C. Gayford, M.A. 

Vice-Principal of Cuddesdon Theological College. [In preparation. 

London : Rivingtons, 34 King Street, Covbnt Garden. 


The Text of 

The New Testament 











I. The Object and Method of Textual Criticism, 1 

II. The Apparatus Criticus of the New Testament 

— Greek mss., 11 

III. The Versions, 22 

IV. Patristic Quotations — Liturgical Evidence — 

Chapter Divisions and Stichometry, . . 47 

V. History of Modern Criticism, ... 59 
VI. The Western Text, .73 

Appendix — A. Tischendorf s System of Notation, 92 

B. Summary of Greek and Latin Mss., 94 

C. Books valuable for Textual Criti- 

cism, 99 

Index,. . 100 





One of the most necessary parts of the investigations 
of historians is to criticise the documents on which 
their researches are based, in order to be certain that 
the text which they are using really represents the 
original writing of the author. This criticism is usually 
kn'^wn as Textual criticism, for the obvious reason that 
it v.c^^'". with the text as opposed to the subject-matter. 
It is less commonly termed the Lower as opposed to the 
Higher criticism, which deals not with the text as written 
by the author or editor of the document in question, but 
with the sources and methods used by him in making 
the text. Thus Higher criticism approaches the subject 
at a point higher up the stream of its existence. 

The object of all textual criticism is to recover so far 
as possible the actual words written by the writer. But 
in order to do this properly the critic has to explain how 
each successive deviation from the original came to be 
currently adopted, and frequently he' finds the clue 
enabling him to do this in the history of some later 
period, which gives some reason for a textual variation. 
In these researches it sometimes happens that the dis- 
; joveries of the textualist are of great value to the his- 
• f rian ; for the corrupt reading of some important 
I icument often explains otherwise inexplicable pheno- 
liiBna in the history of ideas or the conduct of a con- 

The problem, then, which faces the textual critic is to 
amove from a number of manuscripts of varying date 
le corruptions which have crept into the text, and to 



assign to each variation its appropriate cause^ thus 
obtaining in the end the original pure text. 

Let us assume, then, what as a matter of fact is nevt • 
more than approximately the case, that the critic his 
at his disposal all the known mss. of a given work. H i 
begins his work knowing nothing about the charactt -• 
of the MSS., and from them he has to find out and re- 
construct the original text. His work falls into foi r 
stages, which in practice necessarily pass i^iperceptib] f 
into each other, but which in-theory are distinguisnabl , 
and ought not to be confused : — 

I. The study of each manuscript by itself, correcting 

ol^vious mistakes which are due to slips of the 
pen and cognate reasons^ and such readings as 
seem clearly to be corrupt forms of other re- 
corded readings. 

II. A comparison of the manuscripts to which this pro-- 

cess has been applied, and their arrangement into- 
groups, according to similarities of reading, the 
rule being followed that^ speaking generalh'., 
community of error implies community of origi 
This process is carried on until all the knov. : 
MSS. have been put into groups, each witl i 
presumably distinct ancestor or archetype. 

in. These archetypes are then compared, and a p^6~ 
msional text is constructed out of them, the arch.v 
type of the archetypes being arrived at as closely 

IV. This provisional text is finally subjected to thp 
process known as conjectural emendation. That 
is, an attempt is made to explain and emend all 
the passages which still seem corrupt 

These four stages in the work of textual criticism call 
for a little fuller explanation. '» 

I. The investigation of individual mss. and the detec- 
tion of scribes' mistakes or alterations demand the know- 
ledge and application of the laws which obtain in these 


: The chief point to be remembered is that mistakes and 
.•^'^rruptions are of two classes — 
iC- 1. Unintentional, due to natural error. 
ii 2. Intentional, due to a desire for improvement. 
>-l. Unintentional alterations, — Many instances of this 
fi-Jurce of error are quite easy to detect and remedy; 
.-tich, for example, are cases where a word or -phrase is 
s^toselessly repeated twice, e,g. in the Latin of the 
i;iudian ms. of Acts ii. 4 the scribe has written ^ et re- 
p3eti sunt et repleti sunt omnes spiritu sancto,' where 
ihe omission of the second ^ et repleti sunt ' is an obvious 
and certain correction. 

This is technically called dittography; similar causes 
.'f error are homoioteleuton — the confusion of words ending 
\n similar syllables ; this cause often leads to the omis- 
sion of a complete line of the archetype ; and if many 
examples of it occur in the same ms., it is sometimes 
liossible to deduce from them the length of the lines in 
* ae archetype ; haplography — writing a word once when 
jt tought to be repeated, e,g, icvpie for Kvpie, Kvpic ; 
ituoism — strictly a tendency to replace other vowels by 
J ta, but loosely used of other vowel changes. In later 
4* reek Mss. almost any vowel seems changeable for any 
6t'/fer, nor does the same ms. always observe the same 
sj.elling, e,g, Xcyerat is often spelt XcycTe ; Orikv is written 
Bfi^i ; al yvvoLKcs becomes e yti/aiKatr, and so on. 
, There are many other technical phrases for similar 
- nds of mistakes, most of which explain themselves, 
he important thing is that they classify to some extent 
he slips of the pen and misspellings of scribes. A 
lightly different form of error is where the scribe seems 
to have preserved the right order of letters, but produced 
the wrong word from them,'^.^^. in Col. ii. 18 we read 
a coapaKcv ipj^arevoiv, where a possible explanation of an 
otherwise hopeless passage is that an early scribe thus 
I'vided up aL<opaK€V€fiPar€va>v (altering i to c) instead 
of thus, alaypa Ktvep^fiareixov, being deceived by the rarity 
•i|f the word Kevep^arevfov, It must, of course, be re- 
.nembered that the earliest mss. have no accents or 

A similar form of mistake is due to misunderstanding 


of contracted words. A possible example of this is the 
curious reading in Matt, xxvii. 16, riva SeXere dno tS>v 8vo 
aTToXvo-o) vfjuv ^Irja-ovp Bapa^fiav fj ^Irjfrovv k.t,\. The usual 
way of writing *lTjcrovv is a/, i.e. the first and last letters, 
it is suggested that the origin of the reading is that an 
early scribe was guilty of dittography, and wrote vfiiviv 
for v/xTi/, but saw his mistake and deleted the second tp 
by dots — iu. This was taken for a contracted word by 
some later reader — the more easily because Bapa^^av 
seems to be a patronymic. (Such an explanation is, of 
course, double-edged ; tlie omission of iv can be explained 
equally well as an example of haplography.) 
^-^ It is very important to collect the examples of this 
kind of mistake, not simply because their detection is 
a first step towards the purifying of the text, but because 
they are an important clue to the history of the manu- 
script in which they occur. The more senseless the 
mistake, the more important it sometimes is, e.g. in 
Matt. xiii. 54, Cod. Sinaiticus reads els rffv avTiirdrpiBa 
for 6iff TTju irarplha, where Dr. Rendel Harris has pointed 
out that this is a clue to the birthplace of the ms., just 
as we might imagine an Oxford scribe of Shakespeare 
, writing — 

* I come to Banbury Caesar ' for ^ bury Caesar,* 

and mistakes in spelling, especially if repeated, often 
give a hint as to the pronunciation, and so nationality, 
of the scribe. For example, if a scribe of early date 
is found to write consistently ^michi* for *mihi,* it is 
probable that he is a Spaniard. 

All these forms of mistake and similar ones are fairly 
easy to detect, and thpir classification is the first thing 
that a critic has to do. Some of them, such as ditto- 
graphs, are obvious at once, others are only recognised 
when several other mss. have been seen, and a roughly 
provisional text exists at least in the mind of the critic. 
It must, however, be remembered that great caution is 
required in deciding whether a reading is certainly 
corrupt or only possibly so. And the critic has always 
to be ready to revise his judgment. He ought always 


to be suspicious of readings^ but far more suspicious of 
his own conclusions. ^_^ 

2. Intentional alterations. — As was said, these are duel 
to a desire to improve the text, either because the arche- 
type had an obvious mistake, which the scribe wished to 
emend, or because he wished to simplify a difficulty. It 
is clear that often a scribe made an easier text than the 
original, and therefore one rule of criticism is that when 
two variant readings are obviously connected with one 
another, the more difficult is to be preferred. 

It would be a profitless task to attempt to classify the 
possible causes of intentional alteration. But some of 
those which especially affect the New Testament text 
are: — 

(a) The influence of translations known to the scribe. 

This is especially the case with bilingual mss.,^ 
which are Greek in one column and Latin in 
the next. The texts of the Greek and Latin in 
these cases are almost always accommodated to 
each other, partly in order to have as little 
divergence of reading as possible, partly for the 
mechanical reason of wishing to keep one line 
of Greek equal to one line of Latin. As it must 
have often happened that unilingual mss. were 
made by copying the appropriate column of a 
bilingual ms., it will be seen that the influence of 
translations has always to be remembered. 

(b) A cognate cause is the influence of harmonies,^ or 

even the study of the comparison of the four 
Gospels. This inevitably led to a tendency to 
assimilate the Gospels to one another, and to 
remove discrepancies and contradictions. 

(c) It is probable, though not certain, that dogmatic 

reasons may have caused alterations. It is known 

^ As will be seen, there are some critics who believe that the 
oldest form of the Latin version was bilingual, and possibly even 
interlinear. Bilingual mss. are not only Graeco-Latin, there are 
also examples of Graeco-Thebaic and Graeco- Arabic. 

2 i.e, texts in which one continuous narrative is made by 
compilation from the four Gospels. 


that Marcion about a.d. 140 ^edited* a New 
Testament to suit his views, and on a priori 
grounds we may say that both orthodox and 
heretics would often have wished to make altera- 
tions. The fact that so few variants can certainly 
be traced to this cause is probably due to the 
vigilance with which the orthodox and heretics 
^ regarded each other's efforts in this direction. 

The elimination from the text of all the errors which 
are obviously due to the above-mentioned causes forms 
the first stage of textual criticism ; and since it implies 
at least in practice some degree of knowledge of other ^ 
regarded readings, it passes easily into the second stage 
witte \o perceptible break in actual practice. 
VlI.yAtthis point the critic has as it were before him 
aVuimber of mss., the text of which has been roughly 
cleansed from its more obvious impurities. A list of 
the various mistakes in each codex lies in front of him. 
Inspection will probably show that it is now possible to 
group the mss. according to their agreement and dis- 
agreement in possessing these mistakes. Now, it is 
obvious that whereas agreement in a correct reading is 
no criterion of similarity of origin, agreement in 
erroneous readings is a very good criterion. So that 
by arranging mss, according to their common mistakes, 
it is possible to form a kind of genealogy. That is to 
say, it is possible to argue that Codex A and Codex B 
are both copies of the same ms., because both have the 
same mistakes (although each has also mistakes peculiar 
to it), and it is possible to reconstruct this original ms. , 
if it be not extant, by putting into it all the common 
mistakes, and leaving out those which are peculiar to 
one alone. By going through this process one probably 
finds the mass of mss. beginning to assume some order, 
and one is able to say as follows : — 

1. Codd. A, B, C, D, represent an archetype X. 

2. Codd. E, F, „ „ Y. 

1 That is to say, we may find a sentence in some mss. which is 
hopeless nonsense. Its correction is necessarily made simple and 
certain if we know that all other msh. have a reading which is 
good sense, and of which the nonsense is clearly a corruption. 


3. Codd. G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, represent an arche- 
type Z. 

Or we may represent the same hy genealogical trees 
thus : — 



It must, however, be observed that it is often impossible 
to group Mss. quite so decisively as this. For we often 
find Mioced variants, and consequently cross grouping. 
That is to say, mss. were not always copied directly 
from one source ; but, on the contrary, scribes often 
produced an eclectic text, so that the same ms. may 
sometimes represent more than one archetype, and be 
found sometimes in one group, sometimes in another. 
Such a result may genealogically be illustrated thus : — 

X Y 


B A D 

in which A represents a mixture of archetypes X and Y, 
while B and D are unmixed representatives of each 
respectively. In reconstructing, therefore, the archetype 
X the critic would argue that where A and B agree 
their text represents X ; where they differ, if A agrees 
with D, probably B represents X, and the reading of A 
is due to the mixture with archetype Y. If A does not 
agree with D, there are three alternatives : (1) B 
represents X, D represents Y, A represents some peculiar 
variant due to its own scribe ; (2) A represents X, and B 
has the peculiar error, D still representing Y; (3) B 
represents X, A represents Y, and D has the peculiar 
error. Between these three possibilities choice is guided 
by the consideration of the general characteristics of the 
Ms^^-^t^ their archetypes which have been acquired by 
tHe stucfy H)f other variants in them. 
/ III. At this point the third stage is reached. This is 
ihe c<msideration of those numerous cases where in the 


reconstructed archetypes there are two or three variants 
in a reading^ which are all possible, and none obviously- 
wrong. To some extent the reading in the majority of 
Mss. has a claim to be adopted ; to some extent it is 
equally clear that the reading in the oldest mss. has a 

But the genealogical process mentioned shows the 
limitations of these presumptions. One ms. now lost 
may have been copied more often than another^ and so 
its readings may have obtained in the next generation 
a fallacious majority in their favour ; or a very old ms. 
may be represented best by a recent copy, which thus 
represents a generation closer to the archetype than 
other copies made long before. 

Therefore instead of considering merely numbers and 
age in the mss. attesting a reading, we have to consider 
the numbers and ages of the archetypes of groups. 
First we judge what was written in the archetype of a 
group, and then comparing it with others, decide which 
is the right reading. This is done by the consideration 
of two points with regard to each reading. 

(1) Intrinsic probability. 

(2) Transcriptional probability. 

That is to say, it is necessary first to consider which of 
the two or more variants makes the best sense ; which is 
most in accordance with the general style of the author, 
and so on ; which, in short, the author is most likely to 
have written. And secondly, to consider how the scribe 
is likely to have arrived, by the kind of mistakes 
mentioned above, at any of the various readings. 

This process is not always easy, for sometimes intrinsic 
and transcriptional probability seem to point different 
ways. To some extent the harder reading has always 
got transcriptional probability. But there is a point at 
which a reading is so hard that intrinsic probability is 
decisively against it. In such a case it sometimes is very 
difficult to judge. 

The result, therefore, of the earlier work at this stage 
is to remove variants which, though not obviously wrong, 
like those removed in the first stage, are nevertheless 
shown to be wrong by the test of the two kinds of 


probability. And a further criterion can now be applied. 
It will be possible to say what are the characteristic 
mistakes of each group and its archetype. It will be 
recognised that while Group A frequently interpolates 
it rarely omits, while the contrary is true of Group B. 
The application of this criterion will often decide between 
readings, the evidence for which is otherwise equal. 

And in this way the process is carried on, successive 
layers as it were of corruptions being scraped off and 
explained, and the number of archetypes gradually 
reduced in number and thrown back in age, until it is 
possible to construct a provisional text which represents 
the archetype of all known mss. The construction of 
this archetype would be the completion of the third 
stage. New Testament criticism has not yet reached it, 
and^-iherefore the fourth stage is not yet of any great 

^fe^cV importance. 

r IV. jThis consists in conjectural emendation of those 
pasei^s which seem to be corrupt even in the archetype 
of all known mss. It calls for a knowledge of paleo- 
graphy, in order to discover how the scribes' errors may 
have arisen, and for a certain ingenuity in making up a 
theory as to how a mistake may have crept in. For 
instance. Dr. Hort suggests for the impossible OcXmv iv 
Tair€ivo<f>poa'vvri of Col. ii. 18, iOikoTairfivo^poavvri, which 
makes sense, is distinctly Pauline, and is a rare (if hot 
unknown !) word which a scribe might easily misread. 

Such, roughly speaking, is the method of modern 
textual criticism. Three points are worth noting in it : — 

(1) The difference between Biblical and classical textual 
criticism. In classical textual criticism, the archetype 
of all the extant mss. is often obtainable with com- 
paratively little work, but often is very corrupt. There 
is therefore scope for much conjectural emendation. In 
Biblical textual criticism, on the other hand,, it is still 
doubtful what is the archetype of the existing manu- 
scripts. But at least we may be sure that it is an 
exceedingly early one, with very few corruptions, and 
therefore the work of the conjectural emendation is very 
light, and scarcely ever necessary. 

(2) It is impossible to separate the history of the text 


from the general history of the Church. The local 
history of a district, the monasteries of the country, 
local heresies, and certainly local pronunciations and 
dialects with their variations at different times, all act 
on the text, and are influenced by it in turn. The 
perfect textual critic will have to be an expert pdlseo- 
grapher and the possessor of a complete knowledge of 
all the bypaths of Church history. 

(3) It also follows from this that judgments on a 
difficult question are really valueless unless they are 
made not merely with regard to the probabilities of the 
individual case, but with a distinct grasp of the family 
relations as it were of the mss. concerned, and their 
characteristics. The object to be aimed at is to find the 
right reading by way of tracing the history of the wrong 
reading through the various ramifications of the ms. 
genealogical tree, until a point is r6acbed at which it 
first appears, and before which it is not found. 

After thus roughly establishing the method which is, 
and ought to be, usually adopted, the next step naturally 
is to ask what is the material to which the student of 
New Testament Textual criticism has to apply his 
method. An attempt will be made in the three next 
chapters to answer this question, and in Chapter V. to 
sketch the outlines of the attempts which have been 
made to apply this and other methods to the material, 
commonly called the ^apparatus criticus.' But it has 
been found neither possible nor desirable to avoid re- 
ferring in Chapters II. III. and IV. to ideas and termino- 
logies which cannot be fully explained until later. 




The apparatus criticus is the whole collection of docu- 
ments which is at the disposal of the critic. 

It consists ultimately entirely of mss._, though practi- 
cally a large proportion of them can be used conveniently 
and adequately through printed editions. 

These mss. fall into four groups : — 

(1) Greek mss. 

(2) MSS. of versions. 

(3^ Lectionaries. 

(4) MSS. of other works, practically all of them 
^ Fathers,' which quote the New Testament. 

Of course, for practical purposes the student of any 
one of these groups often takes some standard edition of 
the others as a working text, and verifies it in detail only 
when necessary. 

A complete knowledge of the whole apparatus is more 
than any one possesses, but a fair working knowledge of 
the chief documents is a necessity for any critic. 

Greek MSS. — These are divided into two classes — 
Uncials and Cursives. 

(1) Uncials. — The exact derivation of this word is un- 
known. But the meaning is that style of writing in 
which each letter is separatte, and,<roughly speaking, of a 
^ capital * shape, with some degree of curving. 

(2) Cursiyes. — Those written in a 'running hand' in 
which letters are ligatured together. 

The old theory about these two kinds of writing seems 
to have been that uncials were used in the earliest times, 
and that the cursive hand was adopted in the eighth or 



ninth century. Certain discoveries, however, show that 
this is not the case. The earliest division of writing, which 
is found long before the era of Christ, is into literary and 
private ^ hands.* The former is at first always an uncial, 
the latter a cursive type. These two ' hands * must have 
existed side by side throughout the first eight centuries. 
But about that time a literary cursive hand was adopted 
by professional scribes which gradually supplanted the old 
uncial writing. The word cursive is therefore a little 
ambiguous. It means a running private hand in the 
earliest times, and it is also used for the literary hand in 
which small connected letters are used. It would perhaps 
be better if the word cursive were kept for the private 
hand, and minuscule adopted for the literary cursive. 

There are seventy-two uncials of the New Testament 
denoted by the capital letters of the English, Greek, and 
Hebrew alphabets. 

The number of mss. which we possess at present is, 
however, so large that even with the help of three 
alphabets it is scarcely possible to find letters for all the 
MSS. The plan has therefore been adopted of using the 
same letter for difl^erent ^ mss. of difl^erent books of the 
Bible. This method is based on the fact that complete 
Bibles (^ Pandects,' they are called) are very rare, and even 
complete New Testaments are not common, the usual 
plan having been to have one ms. volume of Gospels, 
another of Acts and Catholic Epistles, and a third of the 
Pauline Epistles. It is usually obvious which ms. is 
meant, but in doubtful cases the recognised practice is to 
write a numeral in the right-hand bottom corner of the 
letter — e,g, E = Cod. Basileensis of the Gospels ; Eg = Cod. 
Laudianus of the Acts ; E3 = Cod. Sangermanensis of the 

The most important uncials are the following : — 

K (Aleph) Codex Sinaiticus, an uncial of the fourth 
century, now in the Library of St. Petersburg. This 
MS. was found by Tischendorf in 1844,^ at the monastery 

1 In a few cases also different letters for the same ms. in 
different books. 

2 The discovery was made in this year, but it was not com- 
pleted until 1859. 


of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai. The story of his 
adventures and difficulties is most interesting, hut is 
scarcely an essential part of textual knowledge. (It can 
be seen in Scrivener, ed. iv. vol. i. p. 90 ff.) The ms. is 
13J inches by 14^, and at present has 346J leaves of thin 
beautiful vellum. It is written in four columns, with 
forty-eight lines in each. There are practically no 
accents or breathings, and very few contractions or 

The margin contains the Ammoniau sections and 
Eusebian canons (v. p. 54), but not by the first scribe. 
The text itself, according to Tischendorf, was written by 
four scribes, of whom one, who wrote the last part of 
S. Mark, is identified with the scribe of Cod. Vaticanus 
(B). It has been corrected several times : 

(1) In a few places by the first hand, or by the SiopOoDrrjs, 
i,e, the corrector of the same date, who, according to 
custom, revised the ms. 

(2) In the sixth century by an elegant writer whose 
notes are often important. Known as J<*. 

(3) In the sixth century by another scribe a little 
later. Known as X^ 

(4) In the seventh century in many places by a scribe 
known as K*' or as X<^*. 

(5) In' the same century by X<^^ X^^ and fc<<^^ which are 
less important. 

(6) In the twelfth century in a few places by fc<®. 

The MS. contains the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, the 
Acts, the Catholic Epistles, the Apocalypse, Barnabas, 
Hermas, and has the Epistle to the Hebrews after 2 

The origin of this great Codex is one of the nicest 
problems of criticism. It can, however, be discussed best 
after the description of Codex Vaticanus B, with which 
it is inextricably involved. The text contained in K is 
of a mixed character, as is explained in Chapter V. The 
basis of it is * Neutral,' but there is a large admixture 
of ^ Western ' and ^ Alexandrian,' without, however, any 
clear traces of ^distinctively Syrian' readings. The 
text of J?*^ in the Pauline Epistles is peculiar; and, 
as is shown in Chapter IV., forms a group with H^*'**, 


Euthalius^ and^ possibly^ the Armenian version. The 
same hand has a note at the end of the Book of Esther, 
to the effect that the text has been compared with a ms. 
belonging to Pamphilus. This, it will be seen, is of 
great importance in attempting to fix the birthplace 

B = Codex Vaticanus. At Rome. An uncial of the 
fourth century. It appears in the Vatican catalogue of 
1475, but no one knows how it came there. It is written 
in three columns, and forty-two lines to a column. In 
the tenth century some one inked over the writing, 
sometimes altering a word, and sometimes emending by 
omitting to ink a word or phrase which he wished to 
leave out. It has also been corrected by the usual 
bLopOiirqs, and by one other scribe of no importance. 
The text itself was written by three scribes, of whom one 
alone wrote the New Testament. Tischendorf identified 
him with the scribe 'D* of fcC, who wrote the end of 
Mark and part of the Old Testament in the latter 
MS. (v. p. 13). The text in the Gospels and Acts is the 
purest known specimen of ' Neutral,' but in the Pauline 
Epistles there is a distinctly ^ Western * element. 

It is now necessary to ask what is the birthplace 
of \^B} This is a question which has to be answered 
for both together, not because they have an extra- 
ordinary similarity of text, although that is a marked 
phenomenon, but because of certain facts which show 
that they were originally both together at the same spot. 
This spot is Caesarea. Almost all critics now accept this 
conclusion, though Drs. Westcott and Hort in their 
Greek text were inclined to think that some peculiarities 
of spelling in proper nouns point rather to the ^Fest. 

The case for Caesarea is this : — 

(1) The colophon of Esther in J<°, which seems to show 
that in the seventh century at least fc5 was at Caesarea, 
and was compared with a ms. written in that place by 

(2) The curious reading in tC in Matt. xiii. 54, 
^ AvTiTTCLTpiba, which Dr. Rendel Harris describes as the 
mistake of a local writer. Of, p. 4. 

(3) The identity of hands in part of fc5 and B (if 


Tischendorf be right, and his view is generally allowed 
to be ejctremely probable). 

(4) A curious chapter-division in Acts, which can be 
traced through Euthalius to Pamphilus and Caesarea.^ 

More must be said on this point in Chapter IV. in 
connection with systems of stichometry and chapter- 

Thus it will be seen that there is evidence to connect 
K with Pamphilus and Caesarea, K with B, and i( B and 
£uthalius with Pamphilus and Caesarea. 

Can we say any more? Some critics think that we 
can, and connect both i( and B with a definite edition, 
which is mentioned in Eusebius' life of Constautine. 
Eusebius says that he sent to Constantine's new city fifty 
cra>lt.dria iv bi^BcpatSy . . . cV irokvTekSas rja-KTj^cvois rcvx^ffi 
rpicra-a kol TCTpaa-tra, No one knows quite what is meant 
by this last phrase. Rival views are : (1) Bound up in 
quires of three and four sheets ; (2) written in three and 
four columns ; (3) in cases of three or four. Those who 
accept the second explanation point to the fact that K 
and B are in four and three columns, and that K has the 
Eusebian canons, by the first or a contemporary hand. 
They therefore regard the two great uncials, so closely 
connected with each other and with Eusebius' home, as 
part of Eusebius* present to Constantine. But, of course, 
this is merely conjecture. 

A = Codex Alexandrinus. Now in the British Museum. 
An uncial of the fifth century, which was given to Sir 
Thomas Rowe, the British Ambassador of Charles i. to 
Turkey, by Cyril LUcar the Patriarch, who tried to re- 
form the Eastern Church on the Geneva model. There 
is an Arabic note at the beginning which says that it 
was written by Thecla the Martyr. It has a mixed text, 
worse in the Gospels than elsewhere, with a considerable 
Alexandrian element. 

C. An uncial of the fifth century at Paris. Known as 

1 The fact that this numeration is also found in some Latin 
MSB. was urged by Dr. Hort for his Western view, but more 
probably this is merely one of the links in the not yet fully con- 
structed chain of evidence which connects the Latin version with 
the East. 


the Palimpsest of Ephraem Syrus^ that is to say, it is a ms. 
which has been used twice — once for a copy of the New 
Testament, and later, when the original writing had been 
rubbed or washed off as far as possible, for the writings 
of Ephraem the Syrian. The lower writing has been re- 
vived to some extent by the use of chemicals, but it is 
always a fearful task to read even a good palimpsest. It 
seems to have been brought from the East by Andrew 
John Lascar, who gave it to the Medici family, and so 
through Queen Catherine de Medici it came at last to 
the Bibliotheque Royale (now Nationale) in Paris. Its 
text, like that of A, is mixed ; but it has, in the Gospels 
especially, a considerable number of Neutral and Alexah- 
drian readings. 

D= Codex Bezae. At Cambridge^ A Graeco-Latin 
MS. of the sixth century, containing the Gospels and Acts. 
It was at Lyons 1 in the sixteenth century, whence by 
some not entirely understood means Theodore Beza the 
Reformer obtained it and presented it to the University 
of Cambridge* It has been published in cjptenso by the 
late Dr. Scrivener, and a complete photographic repro- 
duction has now been published. It is a ms. of the 
greatest importance and interest. Not because it possesses 
a necessarily good or sound text, but because it is the 
earliest Greek form that we possess of what is known as 
the Western Text {see Chapter VI. ). 

The questions which are raised about D independently 
of the general question of the Western text are these : — 

(1) Where was it wi'itten ? 

(2) Has the Greek been assimilated to the Latin, or 

the Latin to the Greek ? 

(3) Are there any traces of Syriac or Aramaic in- 

fluences ? 
The books which deal with the questions best are 
Scrivener's edition of the ms. , -Dr. Rendel Harris's Study 
of Codex Bezae, and Dr. Chase's two books on the Syro- 
Latin Text, 

^ So Beza said, but there is also reason for doubting whether 
Beza was in a position to know, and some evidence that it was 
really in Italy. 



(1) The first question is hard to answer^ but on the 
whole the Rhone valley is the most probable place. 
This is shown as clearly as it can be by Dr. Rendel 
Harris. He bases his arguments on various marginal 
notes in the ms.^ and on certain philological indications 
in the text itself. Now, the first argument is doubtful, 
for the marginal notes show signs of Byzantine litur- 
gical usages of the ninth century, and suggest that at 
that time Codex Bezae was in South Italy, where the 
Greek rite was used. But the philological indications 
suggest that at the time when the Codex was written the 
Latin language was in a state of transition into the 
Romance languages, and more especially into French, so 
that the Rhone valley, and possibly Lyons itself, is a very 
probable place for the origin of D. It must, of course, be 
remembered that this does not at all imply that the text 
represented by D also came from that locality. Dr. Rendel 
Harris himself points out various traces of other localities, 
including especially Carthage, which seem possibly to 
have influenced some of the archetypes of D. 

(2) Dr. Rendel Harris is the great advocate of assimi- 
lation of the Greek to the Latin. Before his work 
appeared the usual view was that accepted by Drs. 
Westcott and Hort, that when the two texts agreed the 
Latin followed the Greek, and not vice versa. It is im- 
possible to summarise Dr. Rendel Harris's case against 
this theory. 

Many of his examples probably fall to the ground ; 
in some cases the converse of his theory appears pro- 
bable ; but a residuum remains, and the most probable 
view is that neither text of Codex Bezae has entirely 
escaped from the influence of the other. 

(3) It has been suggested that there are Syriac forms and 
idioms in D. The case in favour of this theory is elabor- 
ately worked out by Dr. Chase in the Syriac Element in 
Codex Bezae, A little more must be said on the point in 
Chapter VI. Scholars are not agreed on the amount of 
Eastern or Syriac influence which they trace in Codex 
Bezae, but most of them agree that there is some. For 
instance, the spelling of tyXei, rjk€i \a^a Ca(j)6av€i, in Matt, 
xxvii. 46, seems to imply a knowledge of Hebrew and 


Aramaio. A brief account of Dr. Chase's arguments will 
be found on p. 87 in connection with the general question 
of the origin of Uie Western text. 

There are no other mss. of equal importance to these. 
A list of all the Uncials will be found in Appendix B. 
But it is perhaps as well to say something about a few. 

L. Codex R%ius^ at Paris, a ms. of the eighth century. 
Said to be probably written by an Egyptian scribe. Its 
text is allied to that of B, but it has many readings in 
co mmo n with Origen. It is remarkable for possessing 
tne ' slio rter conclusion ' of S. Mark. j 

A. Oodex Sangallensis, in the monastery of S. Gall, 
probably of the eighth century, a Greek uncial with an 
interlinear Latin version. It has an inferior text as a 
rule, but in Mark there are many readings of an 
Alexandrian, and sometimes Neutral type. It is the same 
MS. as G3 of th& Epistles. 

T. Cod. Borgianus (v. ) is a collection of Grseco-Sahidic 
fragments, which are remarkable for a Neutral text, and 
according to Westcott and Hort approach more nearly to 
B than any other ms. 

3. Cod. Zacynthius (ix. ) is a palimpsest fragment of 
Luke, belonging to the S.P.C.K., with a Neutral and 
Alexandrian type of text. 

Eg. Codex Laudianus of the Acts (vii.), a Latino-Greek 
MS. probably written in Sardinia, and thence taken to 
Britain, when it was almost certainly used by Bede in 
his Retractiones, It afterwards passed into the possession 
of Archbishop Laud, who gave it to the Bodleian, where 
it is at present. It has a remarkable Western text, allied 
to D, but more closely connected with the Latin ms. 
' gigas,* which is at Stockholm, and so with Lucifer of 
Cagliari in Sardinia, whose text is almost identical with 
gigas. It has the same chapter-numeration system as 
KB am. Euthalius (v. p. 55). 

Dg. Cod. Claromontanus(vi.); E,. Cod. Sangermanen- 
sis (ix.) ; Fg. Cod. Augiensis (ix.) ; 63. Cod. Boemerianus 
(ix.) of the Pauline Epistles, form a group of Graeco- 
Latin mss. which are certainly closely connected. E3 is 
almost certainly copied from Dg ; and F,, if not copied 
from G3, is probably an inferior copy of the same arche- 



type ; while Dg and Gg themselves probably ' have a 
common and not very distant ancestor, Dg being pro- 
bably the better representation as a rule. The text of 
their group is called Western, because its characteristics 
are similar to that of the Western text {cf. Chapter VI.) 
of the Gospels and Acts. They are, however, so much less 
striking that there is room for legitimate doubt as to 
whether the Western text of the Gospels and Acts is 
not due to some special cause which did not affect the 

Hg. Codex Coislianus of the Pauline Epistles (of which 
12 leaves are at Paris, 9 in the Laura S. Athanasii on 
Mount Athos, 2 at Moscow, 6 at various libraries at 
S. Petersburg, and 2 at Turin), an uncial of the sixth 
century, which seems from the subscriptions and notes 
to have been originally in the great monastery at 
Caesarea. Its text is that of the group represented by 
K^^Hg, the Armenian version^ and Euthalius, and often 
termed the Euthalian text. There is an elaborate and 
most interesting account of it in Dr. Armitage 
Robinson's Euthaliana in Texts and Studies, 

Turning to the cursives, or more properly minuscules, 
we find that their numbers are greater than their interest. 
The list is constantly being increased by the cataloguing 
of new Mss., and there are now about three thousand. 
They are denoted by figures. There is no fixed system 
of cataloguing them which is universally received ; 
Gregory's catalogue probably is used most often, but 
some use Scrivener's Introduction, which has not always 
the same numeration. As things stand at present, it is 
a superhuman task to remember in the case even of 
important mss. the differing notation of Gregory and 
Scrivener, and also in some Cases the antiquated and 
provisional notations which were used by Tischendorf 
and by Westcott and Hort in their editions previous 
to the catalogues of Gregory and Scrivener. This can 
be seen at once by looking at Appendix A on Tischen- 
dorf's Notation, 

There are, however, a few minuscules which are inter- 

1 The Armenian version may have to be omitted from this 


esting and important^ though itis scarcely possible in the 
present book to do more than indicate which they are. 

33. Paris Nat. Gr. 14, probably of the tenth century 
or earlier, in bad condition, and most difficult to read. 
Its text is more like that of K B than is that of any other 
minuscule. It may probably be described as Alexandrian 
and Neutral, with some Syrian elements. 

13-69-12^346, at Paris, Leicester, Vienna, and Milan 
respectively, are all twelfth century mss., except 69, 
which belongs to the fifteenth at the earliest. They are 
known as the Ferrar group, because Dr. Ferrar of Dublin 
proved their origin from a common archetype. The Abbe 
Martin has also shown, partly on palaeographical grounds, 
partly on the hints conveyed by the names of the saints 
in menologies or calendars which are found in each, that 
they all (except 69, which is later) originated in Calabria 
or Sicily. 

Dr. Rendel Harris has also shown that the curious 
text which they preserve has many affinities with the old 
Syriac, and especially with Tatian's Diatessaron. They 
are therefore valuable evidence for Western readings, 
and in some cases preserve readings which are not found 
in any other Greek mss., though attested by the Syriac 
and Latin versions. There are several other mss. which 
belong to this group, notably 543, a Burdett Coutts ms. 
of the twelfth century ; 826 and 828, also of the twelfth 
century, at Grotta Ferrata ; and 348 at Milan. ^ 

Besides the Ferrar group, there is another quartette of 
MSS. : 1 at Basel, of the tenth century; 118 in the Bodleian, 
of the thirteenth ; 131 at the Vatican, of the same date ; 
and 209 a* S. Mark's in Venice. These, like the Ferrar 
group, certainly have a common archetype. They have 
not at present been much studied, but it is nearly cer- 
tain that they contain a text which has affinities on the 
one hand with the old Syriac (e.g. they alone of Greek 
MSS. agree with Sjnriac mss. in reading \ricrovv Bapd^fiav in 
Matthaeum xxvii.), and, on the other hand, with the text 
implied by Origen in Matthaeum, which differs from that 

1 There are also certain other mss. (e.g. 211, 713, 709) which 
have some points of affinity with the group, though they are not 
primary members of it. 


of the other works of Origen^ almost certainly because it 
was written at Caesarea. The. suggestion, therefore, is 
that the text represented by 1-118-131-209 and Origen in 
Matthaeum, goes back to a Caesarean origin ; but this 
cannot yet be regarded as certain. Many Western read- 
ings are found in 565, which Scrivener calls 473, Westcott 
and Hort call 81, and Tischendorf 2p®, because it is second 
in a catalogue made by Muralt at S. Petersburg. ^ 

Minuscules of some importance for the criticism of the 
Acts are 137 and 161 ; 137 would probably repay study, 
as it frequently preserves Western readings, but the 
present writer is not aware that it has ever yet been 
treated in any detail; 161, on the other hand, has a 
>feutral and Alexandrian text. 

In the Pauline Epistles, 17 ( = 33 of the Gospels) and 67 
are conspicuous for often preserving early and good read- 
ings, and there are many minuscules of the Apocalypse 
which are important not so much for themselves as for 
preserving the commentaries of Andreas and Arethas, 
which had a great influence on the, text. 

1 Muralt, however, himself called it 53, and in S. Petersburg 
it is called vi. 470. This is a splendid example of the trials 
inflicted upon the student of minuscules by successive editors and 



Next in importance to the Greek mss. come the versions, 
that is to say, the translations into various languages 
which have been made at different times from the Greek 
text. But before describing any of them separately, it 
may be well to consider what is the value of a version 
and what are the necessary limitations to its use for the 
purposes of textual criticism. It is obvious that the 
exact text of any given version has to be recovered in 
the manner described in Chapter I. Assuming that this 
can be done, the value of the version is that of the Greek 
text underlying it. If the version is an early one, and 
has been made from a good Greek text, its value is great ; 
otherwise it is small. If, therefore, we possess a version 
which seems to have been made at a very early time 
from a good text, we have next to ask the question. How 
far can we reconstruct the Greek text which was used 
by the makers of the version ? In considering this point, 
the first problem is. How far is the translation a literal 
one ? For, of course, if we can assure ourselves that we 
have a word-for-word translation, and that the same 
word in the version always implies the same word in the 
underlying Greek, we can restore the latter with ease 
and certainty ; while, on the other hand, if we cannot so 
assure ourselves, any restored text will be hypothetical 
and tentative. In other words, before we can properly 
use the evidence of versions, we must try to wrest from 
them some information as to the method which the trans- 
lator employed in making them. Few things, however, 
are more remarkable in the study of textual criticism 


than the really solid advance which has been made in 
this sphere of work, especially perhaps with regard to 
the Latin version ; and probably all who have studied 
the subject would agree that the general trend of recent 
criticism has been to show that the early versions are 
singularly faithful to their underlying Greek^ in spite of 
an occasional tendency to paraphrase. 

The student of versions, therefore, has four distinct ' 
tasks before he can use them for the purposes of textual 
criticism — (1) By the application of the methods de- 
scribed in Chapter I. he must reconstruct the archetype 
of the version with which he is dealing ; and here he 
needs to exercise caution to avoid the mistake of suppos- 
ing that all Mss. of the same book in the same language 
represent the same version. There may be more than 
one version in the same language. 

(2) By careful comparison of renderings in different 
places he must form an induction as to the methods of 
the original translator, and decide whether he adopted 
a paraphrastic or literal style. 

(8) He must then proceed to reconstruct the under- 
lying Greek text ; and he will do this with confidence if 
he found in the previous stage of his work that the charac- 
teristic of the translator was a literal style, so that 
divergence of rendering may be safely taken to imply 
divergence of reading, while he will do it with diffidence 
and with alternative possibilities kept in view if he found 
the reverse to be the case. 

(4) He must finally form a judgment as to the value 
of this reconstructed ms. on exactly the same grounds 
as he would judge a Greek ms. of the same date and 

It must be remembered that although the text of a 
version has as great a chance of being corrupt as a Greek 
MS. has, yet it is not often likely to have been corrupted 
in the same way ; e.g. in 1 Tim. iii. 16, the Greek mss. 
differ between Gcoy and oc — i.e. between 02 and 02. 
Here a scribe's confusion is so probable that decision is 
difficult ; but in Latin the difference is Deus and qui, so 
that we can take the Latin as free, in this case, from a 
cause which may have contaminated the Greek. 


Th«re are three versions of the New Testament of 
iirst-class importance — ^Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian; and 
possibly similarity of language in each case conceals the 
fact that we have really more than one version in each. 
And there is an immense number of translations of smaller 
and varying importance^ some of which have been made 
from one of the three great versions, some independently 
'from later Greek mss. Such are the Armenian^ Aethiopic, 
Gothic, Georgian, Arabic, Persian, Sclavonic, and many 

The Latin Version. — The history of the Latin version, 
or it may be versions, bristles with difficult and disputed 

The best way of describing it would, of course, be to 
begin with the oldest form and trace its gradual growth 
and development. But this is impossible. Its origin 
is shrouded in mystery, and therefore it is necessary to 
begin with the earliest historical statements about the 
Liatin version and work back from them to an earlier 
time. The development after that point demands separate 

The first statements on which we can rely are those of 
Jerome and Augustine. 

Jerome. — Jerome's information is given in the open 
letter which he wrote to Pope Damasus in 384 a.d. as 
a preface to his edition of a revised Latin text. This 
revised text is that which is known as the Vulgate, 
which, as will be seen, has been the text of Latin-Speak- 
ing Churches of the West ever since. In this letter to 
Damasus, Jerome explains — 

(1) Why he found it necessary to issue a revised text ; 

(2) On what principles he conducted his revision. 

His answer to the first point is that there was a great 
difference between different renderings. ' Si enim Latinis 
exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant quibus. 
Tot enim exemplaria pene quot codices. * (So in Cod. Am. ) 

To the second, that he had revised the Latin by means 
of the oldest Greek mss. which he could find, removing 
harmonistic and clerical corruptions, but so far as pos- 
sible preserving the renderings which were familiar to 
Latin ears. 


* Igitur haec praesens praefatiuncula pollicetur quattuor 
tantum evangelia quorum ordo iste est Mattheus Marcus 
Lucas lohannes codicum grsBcorum emendata conlatione 
sed et veterum. Quae jie multum e lectionis latin» con- 
suetudine discreparent ita calamo temperavimus ut his 
tantum quas sensum videbantur mutare correctis reliqua 
manere pateremur ut fuerant.' 

So far, then, as Jerome's evidence goes, we are told 
that at the end of the fourth century there was a great 
variety of Latin renderings which differed both among 
themselves and also from the Greek text. 

Turning to Augustine, we find that he attests practically 
the same facts. The locus classicus is his tract De Doctrina 
Christiana, In this he speaks in the strongest terms 
of ^Latinorum interpretum iniinita varietas,' which he 
attributes to the effects of separate translations by early 
Christians. ^ Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in 
mauus venit codex Graecus, et aliquantulum facultatis 
sibi utriusque linguae habere videbatur, ausus est inter- 

The result, therefore, of the evidence of Augustine, as 
of Jerome, is to make us look for a pre-Vulgate version 
or versions characterised by many variations of reading 
and rendering. And the proper method will obviously 
be to inquire whether we can group these variations 
geographically and chronologically by identifying them 
with the text used by any definite Father or group of 

First of all, then, we put on one side for the moment 
all the Mss. of the Vulgate or Jerome's edition, to be 
dealt with later on. It is the residuum which is im- 
portant for the early history of the Latin version. It is 
usual and convenient to call this residuum the Old Latin 

The Old Latin. — There are about twenty-seven mss. of 
this in the Gospels, about seven mss. of the Acts, some 
fragments of the Catholic Epistles, about six mss. of the 
Pauline Epistles, and fragments of the Apocalypse. 

The first glance at these confirms the evidence of 
Augustine and Jerome. ITie variations are immense. 
But after a time two manuscripts of the Gospels single 


themselves out as particularly differing from the rest 
and agreeing between themselves. These are — 

k. Codex Bobiensis,^ now at Turin, but once in the 
great monastery of Bobbio. It is a ms. of the sixth century, 
and tradition connects it with S. Columban, the founder 
of the monastery, who died there in 615. 

e. Codex Palatinus, now at Vienna, either of the 
fourth or fifth century. A beautiful fragment of purple 
vellum, with gold and silver letters. 

Their text is most peculiar both in reading and render- 
ing ; and on examining the text of the earliest Fathers, 
we find that we can identify a locality in which it origin- 
ally prevailed, although it does not follow that it was con- 
fined to this district. It is clearly the same as the text 
used by Cyprian,^ the African father of the third century, 
so that it has been called the African Latin. And using 
the key given by Cyprian's use, we find the same type 
of text in the Acts in a fragment known as h {cf. p. 97), 
or the Fleury palimpsest, now at Paris, and in m or 
Mai's edition of the so-called Speculum Augustini, a series 
of quotations from the whole New Testament, except 
Philemon, Hebrews, and 3 John. Whether this form 
of text was originally used solely in Africa is a question 
which we can hardly decide. It involves the whole ques- 
tion of the genesis of the Latin version. Possibly the 
geographical limitations suggested by the name African 
may prove to be baseless. But if we bear this possi- 
bility always in our minds, the name African is a useful 
one, for it draws attention to the connection of the text 
with the great African fathers, TertuUian and Cyprian. 

Their date (second and third century) shows that the 
Latin version is at least as old as they are. Zahn doubts 
whether TertuUian had a written version ; but few agree 
with him (cf, Salmon). 

Having thus eliminated from the mass of Latin mss. 
the Vulgate and African Old Latin, we have to examine 
the few which remain, and see whether they all preserve 

1 The edition of k in * Old Latin Biblical Texts ' contains in its 
introductions the most valuable collection of facts that the 
student of the Old Latin possesses. 

* One would add Tertullian but for the doubt raised below. 


the same type, or whether we can still further divide 
them into groups. And it is generally agreed that we 
can find two groups : — 

51) That known as the European. 
2) That known as the Italic. 

The European is represented chiefly by two mss., known 
as a, b, which are mss. of the fourth or fifth century, at 
Vercelli and Verona respectively, and perhaps i, of the 
seventh century. On the whole, too, the Latin text of 
Codex Bezae is European, and the text used by the Latin 
Irenaeus seems to belong to the same group. 

The Italic is represented properly only by f Codex 
Brixianus of the sixth century, and q Codex M onacensis 
of the seventh. It probably was a modified form of the 
European, perhaps owing to attempts, made before 
Jerome's time, to revise the European text with the help 
of the Greek. It is so called because it used to be thought 
that it was to it that Augustine referred when he spoke 
of the ^ Itala. ' For among the diversity of translations 
which he mentions, he specifies one as in his opinion the 
best : ' In ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala ceteris 
prseferatur.' And it has been thought that this meant 
that one of the pre-Vulgate texts was called Itala. But 
Mr. Burkitt, in The Old Latin and the Itala, shows that 
this is improbable. Augustine would probably use himself 
the text which he considered preferable, and beyond all 
doubt the text he was using in the Doctrina Christiana 
was that of the recently published revision of Jerome. 
So that all that the passage means is that Augustine, 
who, as living in Africa, naturally termed Jerome's version 
the ^ Itala,* considered it to be better than any of its 

At the same time, it is probably true that f, q, repre- 
sent the type of Latin mss. most used by Jerome. So far, 
then, we can roughly divide the Old Latin in three 
groups, represented in the Gospels chiefly as follows : — 

(1) The African in k, e. 

(2) The European in a, b, i. 

(3) The Italic in f, q. 

A fuller list and grouping of the mss. is given on pages 
32, 96 f. Many represent, as may be seen, the corrupt 


and mixed forms of the three families^ the basis of most 
of them bein^ European. 

Problems of the Old Latin version : — 

(1) Are these three groups separate in origin, or do 
they go back to one original version of which no other 
trace remains ? 

(2) VVTiat was the character of the Greek text which 
underlies the Old Latin ? 

No final answer can be given as yet to either problem. 

As to (1). Probably we have scarcely digested the 
material at our disposal sufficiently to form a decisive 

Few, however, would refuse to admit that the Italic 
family is a later form of the European, and cannot be 
separated from it in origin. 

And perhaps most critics would also agree that at least 
in large portions of the Gospels we can reconstruct 
with considerable certainty a text which was current in 
Africa in the third and probably the second century. 
^V^e can with rather less certainty reconstruct an almost 
contemporary text of a European kind ; and when the 
critical edition of the Novum Testamenturn. S, Irenaei is 
published, we shall do so with more confidence. But, 
even so, much of these reconstructions is tentative. Nor 
does a comparison of them lead to many definite results. 
Sometimes it seems as though we had traces of original 
differences of rendering which necessitate the theory of 
at least two original versions. 

But against these have to be set other cases of extra- 
ordinary constancy in maintaining the same rendering, 
and sometimes even a wrong rendering. For instance, 
in any reconstructions, such as those suggested above, 
both African and European would read gaudentes in 
Mc. ix. 15, a rendering which is due to a mistake made 
by misreading rpexovrcs as x«*poin-f j. It is this kind of 
phenomenon which drives one to believe that ultimately 
the African and European Latin are traceable to one 
original version. But, as was said above, the point is 
still doubtful, and, of course, the presumption on a priori 
grounds is in favour of many original versions rather 
than one only. Perhaps it may ultimately turn out that 





• .'Hhere were originally many local versions, but that an 
• \' Official version was adopted at a very early date. This 
- Iversion may lie behind both African and European, while 
^^he continued local use of the original attempts may 
.^r^xplain some of the striking differences which we find. 
**:* s-jVIany critics also believe that the earliest form of the 
;.!^Iiatin version was a bilingual one. That is to say, it 
' ' ^consisted of a Greek text with a Latin translation either 
> '^n parallel columns or in alternate lines. This view is 
•' supported by the existence of the early bilingual mss., such 
' ,:;h& D A of the Gospels, E of the Acts, and D, E, F, G of 
' *;he Pauline Epistles ; and also by the exact verbal agree- 
nent of the Latin and Greek, in which the translator 
ieems to have had some reason for wishing to make the 
entences and the words in one language exactly corre- 
spond in number with those in the other. 
As to (2). The question really is whether all the 
Idest variants found in the Latin are to be traced back 
;o a Greek source. The point is this :. If we assume that 
;he Latin represents an accurate translation of the Greek, 
re have to suppose a lost Greek original of a definitely 
Western * type, such as is now found in Greek only in 
) (which is suspected of being influenced by the Latin), 
,nd in a few places by the Ferrar group and some others, 
"as there ever such a Greek text } This is really the 
it problem of modern textual critidsm — the origin of 
ihe Western text. Here it is only necessary to say that 
m the whole it is inconceivable that the interpolations of 
Ithe Latin versions do not go back to a Greek original for 
two reasons : — 

(a) Many of them, though not all, are also found in 
the Old Syriac (v. p. 33), 

Whatever view is taken of the close relationship which 
exists between the Latin and Syriac, no one has suggested 
that either has been made from the other, therefore a 
common Greek source is demanded for all the interpola- 
tions^ etc., which are common to the Latin and Syriac. 

{h) Many of the Western readings are traceable in the 
text used by Justin Martyr and by Marcion. In these 
cases it is obvious that a Greek and not a Latin text was 



At the same time^ it is quite likely' that some of thJ 
Western readings may be originally purely Latin, and 
due to corruptions of the Latin text rather than the us| 
of a corrupt Greek original, assuming, what is not certain 
that no reading of purely ^ Western ' attestation is primil 
tive and correct. 

One more point calls for mention. If we believe thd 
in any sense the Old Latin mss. are traceable to onl 
original version, the question may be legitimately raise^ 
Where was this original version first made } This, again 
is a question which is not yet answerable. The primitiv 
character of the Cyprianic text might suggest Africa ; bul| 
on the other hand, the a priori probability in favour 
. Rome is very strong ; while, paradoxical as it may seen 
the close textual connection subsisting between the Lati| 
and the Syriac versions has led Dr. Sanday and Dr. Cha 
to consider seriously the possibility whether the Lati| 
version was not made originally in the East, perhaps 
Antioch (r. p. 87). 

Having thus traced the history of the Latin backward 
from Jerome to the earliest times of which we can 
anything even with probability, it is necessary to returl 
to the starting-point and trace the history of the revise! 
version, which, as was seen (p. 25), he founded on thj 
Old Latin mss. of his time. 

The Vulgate.— When Jerome was alive, the characteristic 
of the Old Latin must have been very like those whicl 
we have seen in the mss. which are still extant. AnI 
when at the instance of PopcDamasus he undertook thi 
task of revising the version, he must have had as a preT 
liminary to decide what he should take as the basis of hij 
work. To judge from the result, he adopted for hi] 
Latin authorities the Italic type now represented by 
and q, and revised it by his knowledge of other types an^ 
of the original Greek. It is an interesting question wh 
Greek mss. Jerome used, for no one ms. now known coven 
all the readings which seem to have come from a non 
Latin source. But, on the whole, Jerome's Greek ms 
were probably of a ^Neutral 'rather than a ^Westernl 
type. He published the Gospels in 384, and the rest (M 
■ e New Testament probably before 386, and his versiofl 




gradually became accepted as the standard Latin Bible. 
But, naturally, as years went on the text of the Vulgate 
itself became corrupt ; it was contaminated not only by 
the ordinary causes of corruption in the course ^otf" repro- 
duction, but also by the influence of the Old Latin which 
was still extant. 

The result is that we possess mss.^ with a Vulgate base 
which contain sporadic readings which have crept in from 
Old Latin mss. of every kind. There is scarcely any Old 
Latin reading which cannot be found in some Vulgate ms. 
Therefore revisions of the Vulgate became necessary. 
The earliest of these which were important were made in 
Gaul, by Alcuin in 801, and a few years later by Theodulf. 
Various other attempts at revision were made later on, 
but perhaps the most important are the lists of variants 
collected by various students and called ^correctoria.' 
But when printing was invented the publication and 
reproduction of better editions became easier. Famous 
among these are the Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal 
Ximenes, and Erasmus* notes on the Latin translation 
which he appended to his famous edition of the Greek 
Testament ; but the first really critical edition was that 
of Robert Stephanus in 1528. At about this period the 
Roman Church began to recognise the importance of pro- 
ducing a pure Vulgate text. Pope Sixtus v. (1585-90) 
accordingly undertook the publication of a pure and 
authentic text. The result was the publication in 1 590 
of an edition accompanied by a Bull declaring that this 
was the authentic and only ..trustworthy version. Sixtus, 
however, died soon after this, and in 1592 Clement viii. 
called in all the copies of the Sixtine edition, for a reason 
which is somewhat obscure. Some say merely because it 
was inaccurate, some because the Jesuits, whom Sixtus 
had offended, desired it. In the same year the Clementine 
•Vulgate was published, but, apparently to avoid the ap- 
pearance of dissension, under the name of Sixtus ! The 
Bull which accompanied it, and which has never been 
repealed, makes it the standard Roman text; no word of 
it may be altered, nor may variants be printed in the 

1 The best ms. of the Vulgate is Cod. Amiatinus, now at Flor- 
ence. A list of a few of the more important is given on p. 98. 


margin, so that officially, at all events, textual criticism 
in the Roman Church ended iu 1592. Modern editions 
of the Vulgate are being made in England by the 
Bishop of Salisbury (Dr. Wordsworth) and the Rev. H. 
J. White, and in Germany by Dr. P. Corrsen. 

The relations of the Latin versions to each might be 
graphically represented thus : — 

Greek Text 

(perhaps Neutral 



(probably Western 


African Latin 
(k, e, Cyprian, etc.)- 


The Vulgate of S. Jerome 
(am. fuld., etc.). 

1 It is also possible that the European Latin ought to be con- 
nected directly with the African. 

^ The influence of this source ought perhaps to be confined to 
the Italic Latin. 


Syriao Versions. — As is the case in the Latin version, 
so with the Syriac : the main body of the evidence repre- 
sents a revised recension. This is admitted on all hands, 
though some consider that the amount of revision implied 
is considerable, others that it is quite insignificant. 

This revised text is known as the Peshitto (or simple) 
version. It is, like the Latin Vulgate in the case of the 
Latin version, the starting-point for criticising the Syriac 
version. But there is this difference : we know all about 
the making of the Latin Vulgate from accurate and 
contemporary information. We know who made it, and 
to a large extent why, when, and how he made it. 
None of this can be said of the Syriac. Here we are 
obliged to fall back entirely on the mss. and the attempt 
to make them tell their own story. 

The Old Syriac. — As far back as the beginning of this 
century Griesbach and Hug perceived that the Peshitto 
was, in the form in which we possess it, a revised version, 
and postulated an Old Syriac which lies behind it, 
though they could not point to any ms. evidence for it. 
But since their time three important discoveries and 
much able work have thrown light on the matter. These 
discoveries are : — 

(1) The discovery in 1847 and the publication in 1858, 
by the late Dr. Cureton, of some fragments of a fifth 
century Syriac ms. of the Gospels, brought in 1842 
from the monastery of S. Maria Deipara, in the Nitrian 
desert, by Archdeacon Tattam. 

This MS. is now B. M. addit. 14,451, and is known as 
the Curetonian Syriac. It contains large fragments of 
all the Gospels, and at the beginning of S. Matthew has 
the curious and important title, ^ Evangelipm dampharsa 
Mattai. ' The meaning of ' dampharsa' is not quite certain, 
but there seems to be an almost universal consent among 
Syriac scholars that in all probability it means ^ separate ' 
in the sense of not harmonised into a continuous 
narrative with the other Gospels on the plan of Tatian's 
Diatessaron {cf, Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus), 

(2) A series of partial discoveries connected with 
Tatian's Diatessaron. This work, as its name implies, 
was a continuous harmony of the four Gospels which 


Tatian put together in the second century^ as Eusebius 
tells us (iv. 29). It had been supposed that this work 
was lo9t^ bu|; in 1836 the Armenians of the Mechitarist 
monastery of San Lazaro at Venice published a copy of 
a commentary on the Diatessaron by Ephraem^ a Syriac 
Father of the fourth century, which thev possessed in an 
Armenian translation. Some years later Moesinger 
translated this, and Zahn and other scholars have re- 
constructed the text on which the commentary is based. 
The interest aroused by this discovery drew attention to 
two other sources of information on Tatian's work : 
(a) an Arabic translation of the Harmony; (3) a Latin 
translation ; both of these seem to preserve the order of 
the sections in Tatian though both have been corrected 
in text by an ordinary copy in their respective languages. 
The former is published with a Latin translation by 
Ciasca, and the latter is known as Codex Fuldensis of 
the Vulgate (c/. p. 98). 

(3) In 1892 Mrs. Lewis and ^rs. Gibson found some 
palimpsest leaves of a Syriac MsToTthe Gospels of the 
fifth century in the monastery of S. Catherine on Mount 
Sinai, where Tischendorf had found his Codex Sinaiticus 
(K). These contain in a legible form about three-fourths 
of the Gospels. The ms. itself is still at Sinai, but it has 
been photographed. It is usually known as the Sinaitic 
Syriac, the Lewis Syriac, or even as K Syr. 

These three discoveries give us all the ms. evidence 
which we possess for the Old Syriac. 

FroblemB of tlie Old Syriac Version : — 

(1) What are the mutual relations of the Curetonian, 
the Sinaitic, and Tatian ? 

(2) What are the relations between this group and 
the Peshitto ? 

(3) How do we explain the rareness of this type of Syriac 
version, as compared with the numbeis of Peshitto mss.? 

(4) What type of Greek text does the Old Syriac imply.'* 
(I) It seems to be certain that the three Old Syriac 

authorities are connected. And, moreover, it seems 
almost equally certain that the archetype would agree 
closely with the text used by Aphraates, a Syriac Father 
of the fourth century. Many \\B,ye thought that the 


Curetonian and Sinaitic ^ represent, as was said above^ 
an attempt to keep the text of Tatian while abandoning 
his arrangement^ and it has been argued by Zahn in 
his history of the canon that Tatian's was the first 
translation made into Syriac. Others think that the 
Sinaitic and Curetonian represent a text anterior to tlie 
Diatessaron and used by Tatian. 

Syriac scholars have scarcely spoken as yet with 
sufficient certainty for any one to feel any confidence. 
It is better to be content with saying that there is a 
close relation between Tatian and the Sinaitic-Cureton 
group ; but what that relation is, remains at present 
an unsolved problem. Much the same seems to be true 
about the relation between the Lewis and Curetonian, 
viewed separately. They are closely connected, and in 
spite of many differences certainly represent the same 
type of text, but exactly what is their relative value is 
still undetermined. Two points, not certain, but pro- 
bable, are however worth notice. 

(a) It has been suggested that the Sinaitic shows traces 
of a text which has been altered to support the view of 
the Ebionites, who held that our Lord was the human son 
of a human father, and that the Divine Spirit entered him 
at the Baptism. This is supported by the reading in 
Matt. i. 16, where the Sinaitic reads — Joseph, to whom 
was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, who is called 
Christ. Whether this variant is really due to this cause 
is very doubtful, and this point is not one which com- 
mands confidence. 

(j3) Far more probable seems a suggestion that the 
Curetonian has a later form of the Old Syriac than the 
Sinaitic, and has been contaminated by a Latin source. 
The evidence for this statement is that, as compared M'ith 
the text of the great Greek Uncials (known as the Neutral, 
cf, p. 65), both the Latin and Old Syriac have many 
curious interpolations (cf. pp. 79, 80), and of these some 
have both Latin and Syriac attestation. But there are 
some which are peculiar to the Syriac, some to the Latin. 
Now it would seem that in many places the Curetonian 

^ This is usually represented by Syr"*". 


agrees with the Latin against the Sinaitic ; and as there 
is no evidence to show that the Sinaitic was connected 
with the XB type of text with which it, of course, agrees 
in these places, the probable suggestion is that the Cure- 
tonian is indebted for these readings to a Latin source. 
An important corollary follows from this point. The 
text of the Old Syriac, as will be seen later on, is closely 
connected with the Old Latin, but it would seem from 
the above-mentioned point that this connection is not 
explainable merely by a common origin in Greek for the 
versions, but by some kind of contact at more than one 
time. In other words, there are various strata in the text 
of the versions which are common to both, not the bed- 
rock alone. So that in reconstructing the textual 
liistory of the versions, we must adopt some theory which 
will allow for some period of time in the earliest stages 
of their history in which the two, as it were, lived side by 
side. The importance of this will be seen in Chap. VL 

(2) What are the relations of the Old Syriac group to the 
Peshittof That is to say, does the Sinaitic-Curetonian 
Tatian group represent an old text which was revised 
into the Peshitto, or is it essentially a different text.^ 
A long controversy has been waged on this point, and 
cannot be said to be finished. At one time a few 
scholars were inclined to maintain that the Old Syriac, 
as we have called it, is really a corruption of the Peshitto. 
But probably no one would now maintain that position ; 
certainly the great majority of Syriac scholars have de- 
cided against it. But it is a more delicate question 
whether the original of the Peshitto is to be sought in the 
Old Syriac. The choice of theories may be genealogically 
shown thus : — 

(1) Old Syriac {Syr^^ Cur. Tat.) 

which is the more generally accepted view, 
or (2) Original Syriac 

Old Syriac 


The latter theory claims that the Peshitto of to-day is 
nearer the orig'inal Syriac than is the Old Syriac. A 
volume which will certainly throw much light on the 
point is announced for the Cambridge Series^ Texts and 
Studies, by Mr. Burkitt. 

(3) The question thus arises. How is it that the MSS. of 
the Old Syriac are so few in numbers, compared with 
those of the Peshitto, which, as will be seen, are very 
numerous? Those who deny that the Peshitto is the 
result of a revision of the Old Syriac, explain that this is 
due to the fact that the Old Syriac is a merely accidental 
survival of a curiously corrupt text, which never had a 
large circulation. This is not supported by- the quota- 
tions in Aphraates and Ephraem, and therefore probably 
a better theory is that which postulates a revision of the 
Syriac text in the third or fourth centuries, which cor- 
rected the Old Syriac into the Peshitto (as S. Jerome 
corrected the Old Latin into the Vulgate), and insisted 
on the abandonment of the Old Syriac. It is said that 
there is no external evidence for this theory. That is 
nearly true. But even if it were quite true it would not 
be necessarily fatal ; early Syriac literature js terri bly^ 
scarce.. And also it must not be forgotten that there is 
one small piece of evidence which may support the idea 
of a revision. Theodoret, who wrote in the middle of the 
fifth century, mentions that he himself found over two 
hundred copies of Tatian in use in his district, and replaced 
them by the four Gospels. This vigorous line of action 
will easily explain the rapid extinction of Tatian's 
Diatessaron, and it is at least probable that the copies 
Supplied would be made as accurate as could be, which 
implies something very like a revision. 

(4) What type of Greek text does the Old Syriac repre- 
sent? This question is of course complicated by the 
differences between the Curetonian and the Sinaitic. 
Neither, as was seen, can be taken as quite accurately re- 
presenting the Old Syriac. At the same time, the Sinaitic 
seems to be freer than the Curetonian from Latin influ- 
ence, and therefore is an appreciably better text than 
the latter. Taking the Sinaitic as, on the whole, the 
best guide, the answers to the question raised would be : 


(1) The text implied is a ^ Western ' one {cj\ p. 65). (2) It 
is a short text. The first point is shown by the additions 
which it makes to the ordinary Greek text, as represented 
by W.H., some of which, e,g, ' quia Deus est Spiritus * in 
Jo. iii. 6, are common to it and the Old Latin, and belong 
to that stratum of the Western text which is common to 
Latin and Syriac, and is probably the earliest corruption 
of the true text. Some, not differing in internal char- 
acteristics, are peculiar to the Syriac, e.g, in the statement 
that Barabbas' name was Jesus. 

The second point is shown by a series of striking 
omissions, some of them of considerable length, e,g, the 
story of Herod and Pilate's reconciliation in Luke xxiii. 
12 ; some of them — notably, perhaps, a series in S. Mark 
— omissions of redundant phrases, e,g. Matt. i. 32, 
where Syr"'° omits 6y\tias yevofievrjs. Omissions, of a 
character which can scarcely be called dissimilar, are 
found in the Old Latin, but not often in the same 
passages as the Syriac omissions ; and W. H. , writing 
before the discovery of Syr"*°, accepted most of the 
Latin omissions as representing the true text. The 
(question therefore arises. Are we to say the same of the 
Syriac omissions, and greatly increase the number of 
passages suspected of being Western non-interpolations, 
or in other words, non-Western interpolations.'* This 
question is not yet settled ; indeed, it has hardly been 
discussed. It will, however, be hard to resist the Syriac 
omissions, unless it be possible to show adequate reason 
for thinking that the Sinaitic text represents a deliber- 
ately shortened recension. In. the face of the Syriac 
additions, this will be hard to do. It is also worth while 
to remember, in the case especially of the shortening of 
readings in S. Mark such as the omission of 6yj/ias yei/o- 
fi€vr}s, mentioned above, that the bearing on the Synoptic 
question must be considered. Higher critics, assuming 
as they do that the second Gospel, or something very like 
it, was used by the compilers of the first and third, always 
find a difficulty in those passages which, like that quoted, 
seem to be conflations from S. Matthew and S. Luke. 

The Fesliitto. — We now return to the Peshitto. There 
are many extant mss. ranging in date from the fifth 


century onwards. A critical edition is being prepared. It 
is said that some of the later mss. show signs of readings 
not found in the earlier copies^ but existing in the Old 
Syriac. This would be expected on the analogy of the 
Latin version, where it is known that the later mss. of 
the Vulgate show a text contaminated by thie survival of 
Old Latin readings in the popular use. The date of the 
Peshitto is doubtful. It is alleged that the absence of 
the disputed Catholic epistles (the avTiXtyofifva) points to 
a date not later than the third century, when these writ- 
ings were received. This certainly shows that the original 
Syriac version was in existence at that time, and the evi- 
dence of Tatian suggests that it was in existence in the 
second century, but it does not show that the Peshitto in 
its present form was in existence at the time. The revision 
of the Syriac text may have affected only the Gospels. 
The analogy of the Latin, where the Vulgate text of the 
Catholic epistles seems to have undergone but little 
revision, suggests this. Therefore all that can be said 
is that a Syriac version existed, probably in the form 
which we have called Old Syriac, in the second century ; 
and that the Peshitto, as we have it, was based on a 
revision of this ; but at what date this hypothetical 
revision took place we do not know. It can scarcely 
have 'been later than the fourth century. Nor do we 
know yet whether it affected all the New Testament. 
That it affected the Gospels is almost certain. That it 
affected the Acts is probable (rf. Dr. Chase, Syro-Latin 
Text). That it affected the epistles is quite doubtful. 

Whatever may prove to be the case with this supposed 
revision, there cei-tainly were two later revisions of the 
Peshitto itself. These were : — 

1. The Fhilozenian. — This was made for Philoxenus, or 
Xenaias, the bishop of Hierapolis, in 508, by Polycarp, 
Rural-Bishop. There are apparently no mss. extant of 
this revision. 

2. The Harklean. — This is really not so much a revision 
of the Peshitto, as of the Philoxenian. It was made in 
616 by Thomas of Harkel, who was afterwards bishop of 
Hierapolis. It is literal to the point of obscurity, and it* 
text as a whole is that of the later Greek mss., but it has 


many striking readings, usually in the margin, and an 
elaborate system of asterisks and obeli, imitated probably 
from Origen's use of such signs in the Hexaplar Septua- 
gint. It is an interesting problem whence Thomas of 
Harkel obtained these readings. Practically all that we 
' know is what he says himself in his subscription, which 
is also the chief authority for the facts given above con- 
cerning the Philoxenian. He says : * This book of the 
four holy Gospels was translated ... in the city of 
Malry (Hierapolis) in the year of Alexander of Macedon 
819 (a.d. 508). . . . Afterwards it was collated with much 
diligence by me, the poor Thomas, by the help of two or 
three accurate Greek manuscripts in Antonia of the great 
city of Alexandria in the monastery of the Antonians 
(probably the monastery of the Enaton, i.e. of the ninth 
milestone), it was again written out and collated in the 
aforesaid place in the year of the same Alexander 927 
(a.d. 616),' etc. The results of these labours are the 
marginal readings mentioned above, and it seems pro- 
bable that they represent a Greek ms. of a markedly 
Western type and early character. So that the margin 
of .the Harklean is more valuable than its text. What 
exactly is the meaning of the signs used is unknown. 
It is suggested that an asterisk implies that the reading 
is an addition to the text, and that the obelus means that 
the words marked ought to be taken out. It must be 
remembered that this version is often called ^ Sjrra pos- 
terior,' and so Tischendorf always quotes it as Syr**, 
naming the Peshitto Syr"*"* from Schaff, one of the 
earliest editors of the Peshitto. 

So far, all the Syriac versions have in all probability 
been connected genealogically. It remains to consider 
two Syriac versions, which probably stand apart. 

(1) The Jerusalem. — This is a Lectionary (c/*. p. 51) 
made, according to a subscription of a monk named Ellas 
of Abydos, in the monastery of the Abbat Mores at Antioch 
in the year a.d. 1030. It is written in a peculiar hand 
and a peculiar dialect, and its text is a curiously mixed 
type. It often agrees with B against the mass of mss. . 

It is remarkable as the only Syriac authority for the 
pericape adulter ae, with the exception of one ms. of the 



Harklean version. It is not mentioned by any Syriac 
writer, and we do not know when it was used. There 
are only three mss. of it known at present. 

(2) The Karkaphensian.— This used to be called a version, 
but it is more probably a kind of Massorah, an attempt 
to preserve the best traditions of the Syriac text by a 
catalogue of readings, etc. There are seven known mss. 
— six Jacobite, and one Nestorian. It is called Karka- 
phensian, which is an adjective of the Syriac word for 
skull, apparently because it tried to perpetuate the text 
favoured in the ^ Monastery of the Skull. ' It does not 
seem to have any great value, and is hardly ever quoted. 

The relations of the Syriac versions, so far as we can tell, 
to each and to the Greek, may be graphically represented 
thus :— 

Greek (probably Western type). 

(?) Special Latin influence. 

Syriac, Cur. 

Greek (probably Syrian type). 


A separate group altogether 

The Jerusalem Syriac. 

Harklean, text and margin. 

The Sgryptiaii Versions. — Very much less is known at 
present about the Egyptian versions than either the Latin 
or Syriac. They are found in various forms of that 
debased type of the ancient Egyptian language, written 
in characters borrowed from Greek, which was current in 


the earliest centuries of the Christian era, and is usually 
known as Coptic.^ The questions which are raised are 
very complicated, and perhaps they may be best divided 
into those which are concerned with the history of the 
dialects, and those which are concerned with the history 
and character of the versions in those dialects. 

The Egyptian Dialects. — Apart from the evidence of mss., 
the only testimony which seems important is that of Atha- 
nasius of Kos in the Thebaid (eleventh century), who 
published an Arabic-Coptic grammar. He says that there 
were three dialects : (1) Sahidic ; (2) Bohairic ; (3) Bash- 
muric, representing three districts in Egypt. Of these 
we can identify the Sahidic as the southern, and Bohairic 
as the northern dialect, and we have a fair amount of 
Mss. in each. Bashmuric is more difficult to identify. 
It was at one time thought to belong to a district near 
the Delta, but it is now generally believed that what 
Athanasius was referring to is the form now known as 
Middle Egyptian, which is a form intermediate to the 
Bohairic and Sahidic, but nearer to the latter than the 
former. It lacks, however, the definitiveness of the two 
other versions, and it is still an unsettled point among 
Egyptologists whether it is not possible to divide Middle 
Egyptian into more than one dialect. Notably there are 
fragments which have been found at Akhmim and the 
Fayoum, to which some have been inclined to give the 
names of the Akhmimic and Fayoumic dialects; and 
Mr. Headlam, in the eighth edition of Scrivener, seems 
to think it possible that Akhmimic is the parent of the 

The dates of these dialects are doubtful. The Arabic 
historian Macrizi (fifteenth century) says Sahidic is the 
oldest, and Bohairic and Middle Egyptian offshoots of it. 
Bohairic is a more literary language, and is said to show 
more signs of Greek influence in grammar and style. 

Geographically it is more probable that it developed 
out of Middle Egyptian than out of Sahidic. It may be 
doubted whether it was not always far more a literary 

1 * Coptic' is a corruption of AlyiJirrioSj just as in modern 
military slang * Gyppy ' is a corruption of * Egyptian.' 


than a popular language. It died out earlier than the 
other dialects^ except for ecclesiastical purposes. 

We have fragments of all the dialects in mss. as early 
as the fourth or fifth centuries; but it is considered 
probable that as far back as the second century attempts 
were made to use Greek characters such as were used in 
the later developments of Coptic. 

The Versions. — We have remains of versions in each 
of the three great dialects^ but the Bohairic alone is 

The Sahidic. — The text of the version in this dialect* has 
not yet been worked out, or properly edited. A great 
deal was published by M. Amelineau, in 1886 and the 
following years, in the Zeitschrift fur Aegyptische Sprache. 
It is remarkable for a number of ^ Western ' readings ; 
e.g. in Luke xxiii. 53 it preserves the curiously Homeric 
addition that the stone laid at the mouth of the sepulchre 
was such that twenty men could not move it {cf. p. 74 f.). 

The Middle Egyptian. — Even less is known of this than 
of the Sahidic. It is not yet accessible to any except the 
Egyptian specialist. It would seem that there is con- 
siderable doubt, as was suggested above, whether there 
is not more than one dialect preserved in the fragments 
which are usually classed together as Middle Egyptian. 
Nor is it certain whether it represents a separate version, 
or is merely another form of the Sahidic. 

The Bohairic. — Far more is known of this version,^ which 
is now easily accessible in Lagarde's edition and in the 
Clarendon Press edition of the Gospels, by Mr. Horner. 
Probably it is a translation separate from those pre- 
served in the other dialects. The text is Neutral and 
Alexandrian rather than Western. 

The broad questions which remain as to the Egyptian 
versions are naturally these ; — 

(1) What is the date of these versions ? 

(2) What was the underlying Greek Text ? 

As to (1), the earliest evidence which we possess is 
contained in the life of S. Antony, attributed to S. 

' Also called the Thebaic. 

^ It is sometimes called the Memphitic, and Tischendorf calls 
it the Coptic version. 


Athanasius. S. Antony lived in the latter half of the 
third and first half of the fourth century, and appears to 
have been in the habit, when a young man (c, 270), of 
hearing the Gospels read in Coptic. This would be 
conclusive evidence if it were not for the doubt whether 
what he heard was a written or an oral translation. 
But from the emphasis which Pachomius in the fourth 
century lays on the study of Scripture, in his monastic 
rules, it seems cei*tain that there were written translations 
in his days, so that on the whole the end of the third 
century is the most probable date for the beginning of 
the native versions. Which version is the earliest we 
cannot say, but Mr. Forbes Robinson in Hastings* Bible 
Dictionary^ vol. i. p. 668, thinks that the Sahidic is the 
oldest, and the Bohairic the most recent. His reasons 
seem to be that (I) the Sahidic dialect, as a dialect, is 
probably the oldest ; (2) on a priori grounds the needs 
of that part of the country which knew least Greek 
might be expected first to produce a native translation, 
and this would suggest a district further from rather than 
nearer to Alexandria. Other scholars, e.g, Mr. Headlam, 
regard the Bohairic as the earliest, but their chief reason 
seems rather too largely to consist in the character of 
the text, which is a very dangerous argument. 

As to (2), the Greek Text underlying the Sahidic 
version is, beyond doubt, an early Western one, and the 
Middle Egyptian seems to be of the same character. But 
the Bohairic represents a Neutral and Alexandrian text. 
It is the only version of firstrate importance in any 
language of which this can be said. Therefore one of 
the most interesting problems of the future will be to 
explain this difference between the Sahidic and Bohairic. 
Possibilities are : — 

(a) The Western element in the Sahidic is secondary 
and not primitive. This is most improbable. 

(/S) The Bohairic Neutral element is to be traced to 
the conviction which obtained in the neighbourhood of 
Alexandria that the Neutral text was the better. It is 
possible that the working out of this theory may throw light 
on the question raised in Chapter V. as to the possibility 
that the Neutral text is a recension made by the school 


of Origen. This could only be done by a careful com- 
parison of the Bohairic with the quotations of Clement of 
Alexandria^ Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, etc. 

The Secondary Versions. — ^The versions of secondary 
importance are those which have been made either from 
one of the great versions or from a late Greek text. The 
most important are : — 

(1) The Armenian version, — The early history of this 
version is lost in obscurity. According to Mr. Cony- 
beare's account in the fourth edition of Scrivener, there 
were two translations made in the fourth century : (a) By 
S. Mesrop, with the aid of a certain Hrofanos Q Rufinus), 
based on a Greek text; (fi) by S. Sahak, from Syriac. 
After the Council of Ephesus in 430, Sahak and Mesrop 
compared and revised their translation with Greek 
manuscripts from Constantinople, and it is this recension 
which is represented by the Armenian mss. which we 

Therefore we should naturally expect to find in the 
Armenian text three distinct elements : (1) An Old 
S)rriac element ; (2) an earlier Greek text ; (3) a later 
Greek text, and we should expect the last to be the most 
prominent. Roughly, this is what we do find. The 
bulk of the readings attested by the version are of the 
* Syrian * type, but there are also two distinct and earlier 
strata : 

(a) A series of readings agreeing with the Old Sjrriac 
text, e,g, in the omission or practical omission of the 
spurious conclusion of S. Mark. 

' {h) A curious group of readings in the Pauline epistles 
especially agreeing with N^Hg and Euthalius, and there- 
fore {cf, p. 56) probably representing a Caesarean Greek 
text of an early type. 

The special importance of these two groups of readings 
is that the former sometimes gives us, in the Acts and 
Epistles, an opportunity of reconstructing the Old 
Syriac text which is extant in mss. in the Gospels only, 
and that the latter is possibly a guide towards the re- 
construction of the ^ Codex Pamphfli' which is mentioned 
on p. 14. 

There are interesting possibilities suggested by the 


Armenian version of Mark xvi. 9-20, where one ms. con- 
nects the verses with Ariston Eritzu,^ or Preshyter, who 
may perhaps be the Aristion mentioned by Papias. 

(2) The Aethiopic Version. — There are two recensions of 
this version made apparently in the fifth and twelfth 
centuries. The latter naturally represents a late text, 
but the earlier has many early readings. It frequently 
agrees with the Egyptian version, though it is said to 
have signs of being in the main an independent transla- 
tion. A collection of readings found in Aethiopic mss. 
is given in Dr. Sanday's ^ Appendices ' ; but very few 
people know anything about it, and what they do know- 
does not seem to be very important for the purposes of 
textual criticism. 

(3) The Gothic Version, — The story of the Gothic migra- 
tion from Scandinavia to Italy is to be found in Gibbon 
(D. and F. ch. x.-xxvi. etc.). While they were still in 
Moesia (318-388), Ulfilas, or Wullilas, a Cappadocian, 
who was their second bishop — an Arian — translated the 
whole Bible into Gothic. It is almost certain that he 
used the lxx. in the Old Testament, and the Greek in the 
New Testament; but there are considerable signs of 
the influence of Latin readings on the text. The Arian 
heresy has left few or no traces in it. 

There are three mss. of the version, of which the most 
important is tlie Codex Argenteus at Upsala, of the fifth 
or sixth century, of purple vellum with gold and silver 
letters. The Gospels are in the 'Western* order 
(Matthew, John, Luke, Mark), which may be due to Latin 
influence or the use of Greek mss. of a ' Western ' type. ' 

Other versions which are sometimes quoted are the 
Arabic, the Persian, the Sclavonic, the Georgian, the 
Anglo-Saxon, and a few others. None of them have any 
claim to importance. The Georgian is probably the most 
important of them, as it is possible that, like the Armenian, 
it may contain traces of an Old Syriac base. 

1 Cf, The Gospel according to S. Mark, ed, Swete. p. ciii. 



So far the only evidence dealt with has heen that con- 
tained in Mss. of different languages^ which give a con- 
tinuous text of the various books of the New Testament, 
and claim to provide direct evidence as to the words 
used by the writers. The evidence which remains is 
indirect. It is that which is provided by 

(1) Quotations of varying length and importance in 

the early Fathers. 

(2) Ecclesiastical or liturgical usage and service-books. 

(3) Chapter divisions and stichometry. 

I. Patristic Quotations. — ^This is a branch of textual 
criticism which is full of difficulties. There are three 
points which have always to be discounted in consider- 
ing the bearing which a quotation in a Father may 

(1) The text of the Father is itself a subject for criti- 
cism. We cannot always be sure that we have the text 
in a sound condition. And especially is this the case 
with quotations. Scribes could scarcely be expected to 
refrain from correcting the text into agreement with 
their own ideas of what the true text ought to be. 
Therefore as a practical rule we can attach less weight 
to the quotation of a Father if it agrees with the ordinary 
text tihan if it differs. 

(2) Quotations from memory are obviously less reliable 
than those copied from a book. And the great majority 
of quotations are undoubtedly made without consulting 


any authority. It is only in the case of long quotations 
which cannot be made from memory, or where some 
definite reading is emphasised, that we can feel able to 
claim that the quotation really represents the ms. of the 

(3) It is always necessary to ask whether we can be 
quite certain that the quotation is not made from a 
harmony or lectionary. 

But after making every allowance for these factors, 
the value of Patristic quotations remains almost as great 
as that of mss. or versions, though of a different kind, 
and greater than that of lectionaries or divisions of the 

Their value consists in the opportunity which they 
afford us of localising and dating various kinds of texts 
in MSS. and versions. For instance, if we find a certain 
well-defined type of text in the Old Latin mss., and also 
in the quotations of certain African Fathers of the second 
and third centuri6s, we are obviously justified in saying 
that this form of Latin version was used in Africa in the 
second and third centuries. Whereas if we had not the 
quotations, we should have very little certain evidence 
either as to date or place. 

There are of course more Fathers than one can count, 
but fortunately the number can be considerably reduced 
for the purposes of criticism. With few exceptions, all 
the Fathers later than the fifth century who write in 
Greek seem to use a late or ^ Syrian * text. They there- 
fore merely confirm the well-known fact that by the 
fifth century this type of text was to be met with almost 
everywhere. Similarly the Latin Fathers almost invari- 
ably use the Vulgate, and so add nothing but confirma- 
tion to our previous knowledge of the wide use of that 
version. The Fathers therefore who are important are 
those who are earlier than the fifth century. 

Taking, then, this selection of Fathers, we find that for 

Practical purposes we can divide them into a few more or 
38S easily recognisable groups : — 
1. A group of Latin Fathers, of whom the earliest and 
' most important are Tertullian and Cyprian representing 
Africa, and Cyprian's contemporary Novatian of Rome. 


These three give us in their numerous quotations a 
fairly complete record of the third century Latin text, 
and Tertullian takes us to the last days of the second 
century. The character of their quot?itions is Western. 

2. A small group of Western Greek writers, contain- 
ing Justin Martyr and Marcion of the second century, 
Irenaeus of the second and early third, and Hippolytus 
of the third. 

Of these it is also true that they present a definitely 
Western type of text, with many agreements though 
with some differences from the Greek text implied by 
the Latin group. It is noticeable that although their 
final home was the West, yet Justin Martyr (Samaria 
and Rome), Marcion (Pontus and Rome), and Irenaeus 
(Ephesus, Rome, and Lyons) can all be traced back to 
the East. 

3. A group ot Eastern Greek Fathers, who are chiefly 
represented by Methodius of Lycia and Tyre, and Euse- 
bius of Caesarea. This group probably represents the 
tradition of Pamphilus, an earlier Father of the same 
locality. These, again, have a Western text, though 
of a somewhat later type. In this group it is to be 
noticed that Methodius and Eusebius, though using 
much the same text, did not belong to the same school 
of thought. Methodius was an opponent of Origen, 
Eusebius a disciple. 

4. A group of Syrian Fathers, especially Tatian (so 
far as we can judge irom his Diatessaron), Aphraates, and 

These also have many Western readings ; but Ephraem, 
the latest of the three, seems often to have used the 
Peshitto, and to have some ' Syrian ' readings. 

The Diatessaron of Tatian has been discussed on p. 33. 
It is therefore only necessary to repeat here that the pro- 
blem of its relations to the old Syriac text as represented 
by the Sinaitic and Curetonian mss. and the quotations 
of Ephraem and Aphraates is still unsolved. 

5. A group of Alexandrian Fathers extending over 
several generations, represented primarily by Clement of 
Alexandria, Origen, and Cyril. The text represented 
by these writers is a most difficult problem. 


The main points are these : — Clement gives a text 
which^ though perhaps more Neutral in character than 
that of the Latin or Syrian Fathers, yet has a great 
number of Western readings. Origen in many of his 
works gives us an almost purely Neutral text, with some 
traces of the Alexandrian ; in others he has a Western 
element, which may perhaps be due to his connection 
with Caesarea, or may be due to the same source as that 
which affected Clement. 

Cyril has an almost purely Alexandrian text. 

It must be remembered that Origen is known to have 
been a critic and editor of the Old Testament, and may 
have extended his labours to the New Testament, though 
there is no proof of this. 

These groups of Fathers, of which only a few repre- 
sentative names have been given, are the foundations of 
patristic evidence. The main facts which are clear from 
them are : — 

(1) The Syrian text as such was unknown in the third 


(2) The Western text in some form or another was 

predominant everywhere except in Alexandria. 

(3) Even in Alexandria the earliest known text was 

probably more Western than Neutral, though this 
point is still somewhat disputed. 

The bearing of this.evidence will be seen in Chapter VI. 

Besides these there are many other Fathers whose 
readings are interesting and valuable, e,g. Primasius, who 
quotes nearly the whole Apocalypse in an ^Afncan' 
text; Augustine, who uses the Vulgate in the Gospels, 
but an African text in the Acts ; Gregory Nazianzen, 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom, and many others. 

It would, however, be neither easy nor profitable to say 
anything of them separately, and to some extent the 
value of their writings for purposes of textual criticism 
still remains for future critics to determine. ^ 

II. Liturgical Evidence. — This is chiefly to be found in 

those service-books which contain texts of the New 

Testament complete, but not continuous, being really 

sections adapted for the use of the Church for public 

1 New critical editions are also needed. 


reading. These may be conveniently termed ' Lection- 
aries^' though they are strictly known by various names^ 
according to the name of the New Testament from which 
they have been compiled, and services at which they were 
intended to be used. A collection of passages to be used 
as the Gospels at the Eucharist was known as an Evangeli- 
arium, selections from the Acts as an Apostolos, and so 
on. But the use and method of compilation in each case 
was the same. In the Evangeliarium, for example, the 
selection was based on one of the four Gospels, and in 
the main the text chosen was adhered to faithfully. But 
there were two exceptions to this faithfulness : — 

(1) At the beginning and end of a passage a few words 
would often be sutered in order to make a more intelligible 
commencement or conclusion, e,g, avros might be altered 
into the name of the person to whom it referred, fi^ra 
ravra might be replaced by some two or three words 
summarising the events referred, or the whole might be 
prefaced by the words iv iKeivoa r«5 Kaipa, or clnev 6 Kvpios, 
or some such phrase. 

(2) If the parallel passages in the other Gospels sup- 
plied some interesting detail which was not found in the 
Gospel which was being used, the requisite verse would 
often be inserted, e,g, the story of the angel in the 
Garden of Gethsemane was inserted in this way into the 
narrative of S. Matthew. 

It is this general faithfulness to an originally continu- 
ous text, taken in connection with two exceptions on the 
one hand, and with the well-known verbal conservatism 
of Church services on the other, that gives to the evidence 
of lectionaries both its value and its limitations. 

Most lectionary systems go back to a great antiquity, 
though very little is known at present as to their origin or 
history ; and as they have not changed, in all probability, 
with any rapidity, they are therefore sometimes valu- 
able evidence. But it will be seen at once that not only 
is their testimony almost valueless on small points of 
wording, but it also carries no weight when narratives 
are in question which have parallels. Indeed, many 
harmonistic readings in continuous texts are probably 
due to the influence of lections, e.g. there is a group of 


minuscules (including the Feirars) which does actually 
read the story of the angel at the Garden of Gethsemane 
in Matthew instead of in Luke. 

The evidence to be gained from this source has not 
been fully worked out ; it supports, on the whole, the 
view which is suggested by the other evidence, that be- 
hind the ecclesiastical text (Syrian) of the times sub- 
se(|uent U) Chrysostom there is a period in which the 
AVestern text was almost, if not quite, supreme. 

Traces of the Western text are found in the Luxeuil 
lections and in the Liber Comicus of the Acts, and it 
is possible that 'A search among the oldest liturgies of 
other languages would reveal the same facts. 

HI. DiyiBlons into Chapters and Stioliometry. — Most of 
this kind of evidence is valuable only as giving a clue 
to the genealogical connections of mss., for there is of 
course a probability that mss. with the same chapter divi- 
sion come from the same part of the world. It is some- 
times possible to argue as to the original division or 
addition of a passage of fair length from the evidence 
which the numeration of lines or arixoi affords. 

The handling of this branch of criticism is all compara- 
tively modern, and is at present confined to a very small 
body of scholars. 

It will perhaps be best to divide the subject somewhat 
arbitrarily, and to start with the most ancient of the 
known chapter or capitulation systems and work down- 
wards, afterwards returning to the stichometry proper. 

Chapter DiYlsions. — At an early period it became 
necessary to divide the books of the New Testament into 
chapters, in order to facilitate the convenience of readers 
and writers. Tliere are four ancient systems of division 
which have been preserved in mss. 

(I) The Vatican Sections. — The oldest system which is 
known to us is that preserved in Codex Vaticanus (B). 

The origin of these is unknown, but it is obvious that 
they are made with reference to breaks in the sense. 
There are 170 in Matthew, 62 in Mark, 152 in Luke, 50 
in John. An interesting point in connection with them 
is that the Pauline Epistles are numbered continuously 
as if they were regarded as one book. And this fact 


enables us to say something about the order of the Epistles 
in a Ms.^ now lost^ from which the capitulation was 
copied^ for as at present arranged there has obviously 
been some dislocation. Sections l->58 cover regularly 
enough Romans^ 1 and 2 Corinthians^ and Galatians; 
but Ephesians^ instead of beginning with 59, begins with 
70, and then there is no further break in order until 93, 
which brings us to the end of 2 Thessalonians, after 
which follows the Epistle to the Hebrews, beginning with 
59 and going on to 64 in ix. 11, after which the hs. is 
defective. Obviously, then, the archetype of this capitu- 
lation system contained the Epistle to the Hebrews 
between Galatians and Ephesians. It has also been lately 
pointed out that this is the order used by Athanasius. 
rherefore, it has been argued, we ought to place the home 
of the Vatican ms. in Alexandria. But this, though 
possible, is not probable, in the face of the argument on 
p. 14 f., which shows good reason for connecting both it 
and K with Caesarea. It is, however, very probable that 
the archetype of KB came from Alexandria to Caesarea, 
and speculators may perhaps fix on the journeys of Origen 
as a possible connecting link. 

One other ms., 2? (Cod. Zacynthius of Luke), has the 
same divisions in the Gospels, and it is not without 
significance that both textual and paleographical con- 
siderations suggest that this is an Alexandrian ais. 

Another set of divisions which is also found in B is 
dealt with later on (p. 57). 

(2) K€<^Xaia xuajora. — Next in antiquity to the Vatican 
sections, if not quite as old, come the xe^aXala majora, 
or breves, or TiVXot, as they are interchangeably called, 
though K€(l)aka1ov is strictly the chapter itself, and rirXos- 
the technical name for the summary heading describing 
its contents, e.g, xe^. a. of S. Mark, begins Mark i. 23, 
and its ritkos is nepl tov Baifiovi^ofxevov. 

It should be noted thjit in no case does K€<t>. d begin 
with the beginning of the book, almost certainly because 
the custom of early scribes was to call the first section, 
as we should call it, not the first section, but the 
rrpooifAiov or preface. 

These divisions, of which there are 68 in Matthew, 


48 in Mark, 83 in Luke, and 18 in John, are not 
found in KB, but exist in A, so that their use in 
the fifth century is quite certain. 

(3) The Axnmonlan SectionB and Euseblan Canons. — ^The 
name Ammonian, usually given to these divisions, prob- 
ably perpetuates a mistaken theory. Ammonius was an 
Alexandrian who lived at the beginning of the third 
century, and appears to have published a harmony of the 
Gospels, as Tatian had done, only instead of making a 
new continuous text he adopted some arrangement of 
parallel columns. 

Eusebius of Caesarea describes this attempt of Am- 
monius in a letter to Carpianus ; and says that, taking the 
hint from this attempt, he had himself worked out a new 
plan of divisions for making parallels and references 
easy to find. 

The basis of this plan, which with various modifications 
is found in the majority of mss., and is invaluable to the 
collator or examiner of mss., was to divide the Gospels 
into sections ; and it has been supposed, probably errone- 
ously, that Eusebius adopted the divisions used by 

Having thus divided up the text, Eusebius next pre- 
pared the indices or tables (Kavoves) of sections. The 
first table contained those sections which related events 
common to all four Gospels, and the numbers of the four 
sections were noted in the table or ^ canon,' and the 
number of the canon (i.e, in this case a) was written in 
red alongside or underneath the section number in each 
Gospel ; so that if any one were reading, for example, the 
account of the superscription on the cross in S. Mark 
which is in section aid (214), and wished to consult the 
parallels, he would look at the margin and see that the 
section number was accompanied by the figure o (1) in 
red. He would therefore turn to the first table or 
canon, and run his finger down the sections of Mark, 
until he came to o-iS, when he would find opposite it Mt. 
7^ (336), Lc. ^(324), Jo. ^'(197), and on looking up 
these sections he would find his parallels. In the same 
wav the second canon contained narratives found in Mt. , 


Mc.^ Lc.^ and so on^ until all the combinations were 

(4) Euthalius. — Who Euthalius was, and exactly what 
lie did, are questions which are much disputed ; but con- 
nected with his !name there is found in many mss. a 
considerable amount of work on the Acts and Epistles 
which is obviously intended for the help of students and 
others of the index-using and reference-seeking tribe. 
A full account of the problem can be found in Dr. 
Armitage Robinson's Euthaliana, vol. iii. 3 of the 
Cambridge Texts and Studies', and some interesting, 
though rather difficult contributions, are made in £. 
von Dobschiitz's Euthalius-Studien, published in the 
Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, 

The outlines of the difficulty are these. 

The account given, apparently by Euthalius himself, in 
a short prologue to the Pauline Epistles, is that he first 
of all published, as we should say, an edition of the 
Pauline Epistles, giving (1) a list or index of the quota- 
tions from the Old Testament, (2) at the beginning of 
each Epistle a list of the chapters into which it is 
divided, (3) rrjv tS>v dvayvaitreoDv aKpifieoTorriv TOfxr}v, the 
meaning of which is doubtful. avayvcd(T€<ov is, of course, 
our ^lessons,' but what ^the most accurate division' means 
is obscure. 

We get further information in a similar prologue to 
the Acts and Catholic Epistles, »which appear to have 
been published by Euthalius at a later date. Here 
Euthalius adds that he had divided the text of the 
Pauline Epistles into short sentences so as to assist 
intelligent reading. He now promises to treat the Acts 
and Catholic Epistles in the same way, and to add the 
corresponding list of chapters. So that, putting aside 
the question of or/xot, we find that Euthalius 
(Vi Divided the text into short sentences. 

(2) Gave tables of chapters. 

(3) Gave tables of quotations. 

Turning, then, to the mss. which profess to give 
this Euthalian apparatus, we find that not only do 
they give these three, lists or tables, but add a great 
deal more. 


The list given in Euthaliana, p. 14, is as follows : — 


1) Mafyrvpiov HavKov tov diroaroKov, 

2) dvaKe<l)a\ala>ais tS>v dvaypoxrccov koi Z>v €\ov(Ti kc- 
<^aXat(i)i/ KOL fxaprvpioiP Ka6^ iKaarrjv eTTKrroXrjv 
TOV aTTOOTokov Kot oawv iKaarri tovtcdv <ttlxo>v 

(3) wpoypafAfia, explaining, 

dvaK€(l>a\aL(0(Tis deioDv fxapTvpiS)v — a short summary. 

( (6) TTpoypafx^, explaining, 


dvaK€(l)aKai(0(ns deiav fiaprvpiav* 

(7) List of Pauline epistles. 

(8) viroOea-Ls TlpoiTrjs irpos *Fcofxaiovs fTrtOToX^j. 

(9) ckBco-ls K€(t)a\ai<ov of the Epistle to the Romans. 

As the reader of Euthaliana will see, much of this has 
no claim to he considered as genuinely the work of 
Euthalius. But the points of direct value for an 
elementary knowledge of textual criticism are connected 
with (1) the chapter divisions; (2) the stichometric 
edition of the text. It will be perhaps most convenient 
to deal with the second point when discussing sticho- 
metry generally. The chapter divisions remain. It is 
only possible to summarise the points of interest and 

1. It was apparently a double system, i.e, each division 
was subdivided into smaller sections. It is doubtful how 
these subdivisions were indicated, perhaps originally not 
by numbers but by asterisks. But it is obviously in- 
evitable that confusion would soon spring up, and that 
at last the double system would become a single one in 
which the numeration would run straight on. 

2. Without saying at present anything about the date 
or locality of Euthalius himself, it is safe to say that the 
Euthalian apparatus at an early period in its history was 
well known in the great library at Caesarea. This is 
proved by certain colophons. 

(a) In H3, saying that the Pauline Epistles were com- 
pared with a copy in that library. 

(6) In some other mss., saying the same of the Acts 
and Catholic Epistles. 


These do not prove that Euthalius went to Caesarea^ 
but show that his apparatus did. 

And it is possible to point to the results of this journey. 

(a) The third hand of (feC«) which is already connected 
with Caesarea^ and the second (probably) hand of B, 
has adopted a variation of the Euthalian chapters 
in the Acts^ treating the divisions and subdivisions as 
a continuous series. This is the other system in B 
referred to on p. 53. 

(6) Some editions of the Euthalian apparatus have 
also adopted the earlier numeration of B, and connect 
it with the second colophon mentioned above and so 
with Caesarea definitely. 

Stichometry proper. — It was the custom in ancient 
times to measure books by the line^ and this line was 
usually sixteen syllables or the equivalent of an hexa- 
meter. This system is also found in the New Testament, 
not in the oldest mss., but in many of the earliest of 
the later ones. It used to be thought that this system 
both in the Gospels and in Acts and Epistles was the 
work of Euthalius. But there is no evidence to that 
effect, as Euthalius only claims to have arranged the 
Acts and Epistles in a-rixoi ; and as he was by no means 
the inventor of the system, there is no reason to assert 
that he also applied it elsewhere. In the case of the 
Acts and Epistles the measuring line as in classical books 
seems to be the sixteen-sy liable hexameter, but in the 
Gospels it appears probable that the standard was a 
fifteen-syllable line. 

The value of these reckonings is the evidence that 
they bring to bear on the length of the text, and there- 
fore on- the question of long interpolations like the con- 
clusion of S. Mark, or the pericope adulterae. 

The most ordinary system in the Gospels gives 2600 
for Mt., 1600 for Mc, 2800 for Lc.> and 2300 for Jo.; 
but these are probably corruptions of 2560, 1616, 2750, 
2024 respectively, which are found in several mss., and 
imply the presence of xvi. 9-20 in Mark, and the omission 
of vii. 53 — viii. 12 in John. 

There was, however a constant tendency to substitute 
sense-lines for syllable-lines, consulting the convenience 


of the reader rather than the scribe, and all modern 
verse-divisions are based primarily on that plan. There 
is also one survival of what seems to be at least 
probably an ancient sense-line division in the pr)iiara 
which form a stichometric reckoning found in the Ferrar 
group and a few other mss. Their probable history has 
been traced by Dr. Rendel Harris in his book on 
Stichometry. The question of their origin is obscure, 
but it seems certain that they represent a retranslation 
of a Syriac stichometry, which is, as said above, probably 
founded on a sense-line system in the Gospels, but in 
the Epistles (where the prjfjLara are not found, but the 
Syriac system is) may be connected with the Euthalian 

There are no other ancient systems of chapter 
divisions and stichometry known to us at present, and it 
must suffice to mention in the briefest manner later 

The oldest of these developments is probably the Greek 
dvayvcDo-fiara, which seem to be ecclesiastical in origin, 
and no doubt there are local divisions both in Greek and 
other MSS. which may be ancient. 

The system of chapters now in use was invented by 
Cardinal Hugo de S. Caro in 1238, and soon became 
universally used in the West. He also divided each 
chapter into paragraphs by means of letters, but this 
part of his work has been superseded since 1551 by 
the modern verses which were invented by Robertus 
Stephanus. None of them has any critical value. 



The history of the criticism of the text of the New 
Testament Is the history of the attempts, successful and 
unsuccessful, to apply the principles and methods ex- 
plained in Chapter I. to the materials discussed in the 
three succeeding chapters. Much indeed of what has 
heen said in these chapters has only heen found out and 
added to our store of material owing to these efforts, so 
that the collection of material and the criticism of it 
always react on each other. 

Of course, critics have consciously and unconsciously 
differed in their methods. A full consciousness of the 
proper method was not possessed by the earliest critics ; 
and it is not wonderful if many of their conclusions 
prove untenable, when we remember that they had the 
triple task of collecting the material, discovering the 
method, and applying it. 

The result of the work of the successive generations of 
critics is found in the printed editions of the text. In 
considering these critics it is best for us not to go back 
to a date earlier than the invention of printing; for 
although men like Origen were no doubt in some sense 
critical editors, we now regard their work rather as 
material for criticism than as anything else. 

The first printed text of the Greek Testament dates 
from the early part of the sixteenth century. In 1614 
Cardinal Ximenes printed a Greek text of the New 
Testament, which was followed by an edition of the Old 
Testament in three columns, giving the Septuagint, Vul- 
gate, and Hebrew ; the Vulgate is put in the middle, 
because, says the editor, Christ hung on the cross between 
two thieves. 

It is not known what mss. the Cardinal used for hi? 



edition of the New Testament, but it is obvious from 
his text that they were not valuable mss._, and his 
edition has no critical value. It is known as the Com- 
plutensian, from Complutum, the Latin name of Alcala^ 
where Cardinal Ximenes founded an university. 

The next edition to be printed was that of Erasmus, 
undertaken at the request of Froben, the printer of 
Basel, and actually published earlier than the Complu- 
tensian. It is based on the cursives Evan. 2, Act Paul 2, 
Act 7, none of which is criticaUy valuable, with occa- 
sional use of the valuable cursive 1 {cf. p. 20). He also 
seems to have occasionally translated back from Latin mss. 
of the Vulgate into Greek. This edition was published 
in 1516, and was re-edited four times by Erasmus. 

These two editions — the Complutensian and Erasmus' — 
were the basis of all the early editions. A fuller account 
of them and their immediate successors can be found in 
Scrivener, ed. 4, but here it is only necessary to notice 
a few of tie latter, and those cursorily. 

1. Bol>ert Stephanus* third edition. — Stephanus was a 
Paris printer ; his real name was Estienne, which, 
according to the custom of the time, he Latinised into 
Stephanus. He published four editions based on the 
Complutensian and Erasmus* edition, and the use of 
fifteen mss. His third edition was published in 1550, and 
has been taken as the standard text in England. 

2. Beza's editions (1565-82-88-98 in folio, and ]?565-67- 
80-91-1604-11 in octavo), which differ but slightly from 
each other or from Stephanus' fourth edition. 

3. Elzevir's editions, 1624, 1633, which differ but 
slightly from each other, were based on a comparison of 
Beza's and Stephanus' editions. The edition of 1633 is 
the continental standard, and from the preface to it we 
get the name ^Textus Receptus.' ^Textum ergo habes 
nunc ab omnibus receptum, says the editor, cheerfully 
assuming the fulfilment of his hopes. 

The publication of these editions gave a necessary start- 
ing-point to criticism, and from their time onwards there is 
a steady sequence of attempts to improve the text by the 
comparison of mss. and the other sources of information. 

Much good work was done in this direction by Bishop 


Walton of Chester (1657), Archbishop Ussher, who 
collated sixteen mss., Courcelles, and Bishop Fell 
(1675) ; biit the first work of great importance was the 
edition of Dr. John Mill^ a work which employed him 
for more than thirty years. It was published in 1707 in 
folio, and its author^ feliv opportunitate mortis, died 
suddenly a fortnight later, before he could be grieved 
by the unfair and foolish criticisms of Whitby and 
Collins. For the first time critics were given something 
like an apparatus criticus, with a fairly full list of 
variants, though the actual text was not a new one. Of 
course, the amount of information given is small com- 
pared with that in modern editions ; but with the possible 
exception of Tischendorf, probably no one person has 
added so much material for the work of criticism. 

Pentley, 1662-1742. — The next work of importance was 
that of Richard Bentley, the famous Master of Trinity 
(Cambridge), who projected (1716) an edition of the 
New Testament, a complete collation of all the known 
Mss., and a text based on the consent of the Greek and 
Latin Vulgate, by which he believed it would be possible 
to reconstruct the fourth century text. This work was 
never completed, partly because Bentley was involved 
in college business and other dilatory work, partly 
because he found that the task he had set himself was 
more complex than he had imagined. 

Bengel. — The Abbot of Alpirsbach, 1734, is the next 
person of impoi-tance. In some ways he is the father of 
modern criticism, for he was the first to suggest a 
simplification of the mass of mss. evidence by that 
classification into families which has been adopted in 
some form or another by all modern critics. He adopted 
a classification into Asiatic and African, corresponding 
more or less to the modern Syrian and Alexandrian 
(pp. 65, 66). This important factor in criticism was 
developed by Griesbach, between whom and Bengel 
there was a line of scholars who added nothing worthy 
of memory to the general theory of criticism, but col- 
lated and examined a great number of mss. Prominent 
among these are Wetstein, Alter, Birch, Matthaei. 

OriesDach, 1745-1812. — He not only collated a great 


number of mss., but developed the ^family' theory of 
Bengel^ sketching out certain groups which, although 
enlarge^ and modified by later researches, have always 
been itcognised by other critics since his time. His 
theory was that there are three groups. 

(1) The Alexandrian or Origenian, so called because 
it is found chiefly in Origen's quotations, A B C L, and 
the Egyptian versions. (2) The Western, so called 
because it is found in the Latin Fathers and versions, 
and in D. (3) The Byzantine, so called because it is 
found in the mass of Greek mss., and may be taken as 
representing the text of the Byzantine Empire and the 
Patriarchate of Constantinople. This last he considered 
less valuable than the other two ; but his principle was 
that, unless internal evidence forbade it (and he sdlowed 
great weight to this exception), the reading found in two 
groups ought to be preferred to that found in only one. 

Contemporary with Griesbach was Hug, a scholar who 
was more remarkable for ingenuity than sound judgment. 
He paid great attention to the fact that there seem to 
have been three recensions of the LXX. — one in Egypt 
by Hesychius, another in Antioch by Lucian, and a thircl 
in Caesarea by Eusebius and Pamphilus, based on the 
work of Origen ; and he considered that there were 
similar recensions of the text of the New Testament in the 
same places and by the same people. This was an attractive 
theory ; but it has, except perhaps in the case of Lucian^ 
too little evidence supporting it. A pupil of Hug's is the 
next critic who stands out as eminent^ J. M. A. Scliolz, 
whose great claim to fame is the number of mss. which 
he examined and partially collated — nearly a thousand in 
all. But he was somewhat careless^ and his results are 
not always verified by subsequent investigators. 

Neither Hug nor Scholz is comparable to Griesbach, 
but in 1842-50 the published works of Laclimann gave 
a fresh turn to the progress of criticism. Since Gries- 
bach's day the amount of material for criticism had 
increased tremendously, and Lachmann found it 
necessary to simplify the bulk of the apparatus. This 
he did by putting aside the mass of late mss. as pal- 
pably containing a late text^ and in so doing he has 


been followed by nearly all critics since his time. On 
the other hand^ he probably went too far in this direction, 
and overlooked the certainty that there are early read- 
ings imbedded in late texts. The discarding T)f late 
evidence was a necessary step towards making a tentative 
text^ but that text cannot be regarded as final until all 
the evidence has been considered. The weak point, 
however, of Lachmann was that he did not pay attention 
to the groupings of the mss. which he retained, but to 
a large extent adopted the reading which a majority of 
his mss. preserved. 

Following on Lachmann came the editions of Tregelles 
and Tiscliendorf. Little need be said of their critical 
principles, which in the main are those of Lachmann ; 
but their great value is that they supply us with the 
most convenient and accessible form of all the evidence 
which has been collected. Tischendorf, edition 8, is far 
the fuller ; Tregelles is the easier to read and understand. 
The possession of Tischendorf is almost a necessity to 
any one who wishes seriously to study the text ; at the 
same time, it is not always easy to understand his state- 
ments of the evidence, so full a use has he made of 
abbreviation and symbols (vide p. 92). 

No critical edition with apparatus has been published 
since Tischendorf, edition 8 ; but there are many perma- 
nent contributions to criticism which are more recent. 

There are the researches and discoveries of mss. made 
by Dr. Scrivener, Dean Burgon, and others, not to 
mention the various contributions of more recent scholars 
which are alluded to in various places in this book ; but 
more important than anything else is the publication of 
the critical text and introduction of Drs. Westcott and 
Hort, usually referred to as W.H.^ This work is the 
foundation of nearly all modern criticism, and demands 
a somewhat close attention. 

The theory of W.H. is this. Judging from the evi- 
dence of patristic quotations, all important changes in 
the text are earlier than the fourth century, by which 
time the text had become stereotyped. The question, 
therefore, is. Can we distinguish the history of the text 
at an earlier period ? 


W. H. propose three criteria : — 

(1) Conflation, i.e, if one variation is shown to be due to 
the mixture of two others, clearly it is later than its sources. 

(2) Patristic evidence : if we can show that the earliest 
Fathers always use one variation in preference to another, 
clearly the former has the superior claim. 

(3) As a last resort, there is the somewhat subjective 
evidence of critical probabilities. 

W.H. urge that these three lines of evidence all lead 
in the same direction, and they put aside one large body of 
variations as later than the rest This body of variations 
they call Antiochene or Syrian. It agrees chiefly with 
the quotations of Chrysostom. It will be well to look 
at one of the examples which they give : — 

(1) Mc. ix. 38. The text found in the mass of mss. is : — 
o£ ovK dKoXovBel rjfup kol iKfoKvtrayLCv avrov on ovk 

But two other variations are found : — 

(a) Koi €K<ii>\vofjL€v avTop ore ovk ukoXovOcI fjfiiv, which 
with a few small variants is found in ^(BCL A 
Syr-pesh ar boh aeth. 
(jS) OS oiiK aKoXovOei^ fieS* fifiiv koi cKooikvofiev avrdr, 
which again, with a few variants of no im- 
portance, is found in DX 1-209 ferr. gr. 28. 
al pauc, k.a.b.c. fl^2 i* ^^* arm. 
Now it is obvious that either (a) and (/3) are rival attempts 
at simplifying the longer reading, or the latter is a ' con- 
flation' made up of (a) and (/S). W.H. maintain the 
conflation theory, on the ground that either of the two 
shorter readings has demonstrably earlier evidence than 
the longer. 

They quote seven other examples of the same kind, 
and express the view that many more might be found. 

Now, the important thing to notice is that in all the 
cases which they give, the division of authorities is much 
the same. 

We get (a) a short reading found in &( B boh. 

(/3) a short reading found in D lat syr^®*^. 
(d) a longer reading found in the mass of later 
jtiss. and versions, which seems to unite 
(a) and (/3). 


W.H. call (d) the Syrian text, (0) the Western (using 
Griesbach's name), (a) the Neutral. 

The keystone of their theory is in the passages where 
we get this triple variation, and the point of the argu- 
ment lies in the assumption that the longer reading is 
made by uniting the two shorter ones — not the two 
shorter by different dealings with the longer. This 
point can be tested only by an appeal to Patristic evidence 
and general probability. 

The latter argument is precarious because subjective, 
so that the ultimate and decisive criterion is Patristic 
evidence. On the whole, this is in favour of the shorter 
readings. For taking Origen, Clement, Irenaeus, Cyp- 
rian, and Tertullian as representing the earliest Fathers 
whom we can consult on textual points, we find prac- 
tically no instances in which they support the Syrian 
form. On these gi'ounds, therefore, W.H. convict the 
Syrian readings of being later than those which are 
Western or Neutral in places where there is a triple 

The next step is the application of this result to 
merely double variation. Here it is found that we 
really get the same three groups of evidence represented 
by KB., D., and the late aiss. The apparent absence of 
one group (making double instead of triple variation) 
is only due to the agreement of the Syrian text with one 
of the others, sometimes with the Neutral, sometimes 
with the Western. 

The theory which W.H. base on these facts is that at 
some point earlier than the fourth, and probably later 
than the middle of the third century, the text of the New 
Testament consisted in the main of two great branches. 
Neutral and Western, and that then a certain group of 
critics — probably in Syria, possibly in Antioch, conceiv- 
ably connected with Lucian's recension of the LXX. text 
— produced an eclectic text, sometimes following one 
branch, sometimes the other^ sometimes combining both 
by conflation, and very occasionally producing a new 
variant probably by conjectural emendation of corrupt 
or difficult passages. These various choices produced 
readings which W.H. for obvious reasons call Neutral 


and Syrian, Western and Syrian, Conflate Syrian, and 
distinctively Syrian, 

Had the Syrian revisers any other sources which we 
can trace? W.H. think that we can see signs of one 
other group of readings, which they call Alexandrian. 
These readings represent, in their opinion, a scholarly 
revision on small points which seems to have heen due 
to the school of Alexandrian criticism working on the 
Neutral text. It is never very important in itself, and it 
is chiefly verbal and grammatical. No one ms. preserves 
it in, a pure form, but the largest remains are found in 
CL boh. Origen, with occasional readings in AA. 

W.H.'s analysis of the text may therefore be presented 
thus : — - 

(a) Neutral text. «B. boh. Grig.- t^thtr. 

O) Western text D., Old Lat., Old Syr., Iren., 
Tert., Cyp. 

(y) Alexandrian. CL Orig., and traces in other 



(5) Syrian based on selection and mixture of 
(a) O) (y), EFGHK, etc., the later versions 
and Fathers. 

The grouping given here is that which is found in 
the Gospels. It is also roughly true of the Acts, so far 
as the Mss. are the same, and with the important addition 
of Eg (Cod. Laudianus) and Aug. to the Western 
text. A fuller grouping of authorities, and including 
the Pauline and Catholic epistles, is given on pp. 71-2. 

Having thus roughly analysed the grouping of mss. 
and established the relative lateness of the Syrian text, 
W.H. went on to investigate the mutual relations of 
the three Pre-Syrian groups. 

Of these the Alexandrian is easily dealt with; the 
readings of the Alexandrian authorities are never found 
in any widely spread group, they never rise above the 
level of scholarly emendation, and they seem almost 
certainly to depend on the Neutral texl^ though there 
is an important but small class which show signs of 
Western influence. 

The Western and Neutral texts, on the other hand, 
are both traceable to the earliest periods of which we 



have knowledge. For the Western text there is the 
second century (probably) authority of Old Latin, Old 
S3rriac versions, Irenaeus and TertuUian, and possibly 
Justin Martyr and Marcion. 

For the' Neutral there is the evidence, almost equally 
ancient, of Origen, and according to the dating of some 
critics, of the Bohairic version. On the mere enumera- 
tion of evidence the Western text claims the majority, 
but W.H. decide that on internal evidence the Neutral 
deserves the preference. They consider that the 
Western text is a very early and very corrupt text 
due to a process of free interpolation and paraphrase 
in an age when the preservation of the true text had 
not suggested itself to most people as a desirable object. 

The Neutral text therefore (which is best preserved 
in KB., esp. B.) is W.H.'s idea of the true authentic 
text. But they make one exception. If the Western 
omits anythuig, they consider that such omission 
deserves great consideration, because the genius of the 
Western text is so inclined to addition that, if it omits 
any reading found elsewhere, the probability is that it 
does so because the omission is primitive; in other 
words, they regard Western omissions as not omissions 
so much as non-interpolations, and consider that these 
passages are to be regarded as corruptions which have 
affected all texts except the Western. 

Their theory then may be presented graphically thus : — 

The Original Text. 

Non-Western additions 
(Western non-interpolations). 

Western additions. 


Western text D., etc. 

Neutral text NB., etc. 

Alexandrian text CL, etc. 

Syrian Revisers. 
Syrian text EGHKH, etc 


No one would claim that this theory is final ; but 
certainly, whenever the history of this century is written, 
it will be found that in the field of textual criticism the 
work of Drs. Westcott and Hort is a landmark which, 
whether for agreement or disagreement, forms the 
necessary point of departure for the next generation, 
and in parts at least will be the foundation of all suc- 
cessful work. 

It only remains to say something of two lines of 
investigation which have been followed up since the 
publication of W.H. 

I. That of the school which refuses to agree with the 
general outlines of the theory. 

These critics are the successors, though not by any 
means merely the followers, of the late Dean Burgon. 
llieir views can be seen at length in the various 
publications of the Rev. £. Miller, Prebendary of 
Chichester. The points which are attacked are two : — 

(1) The preference shown to the text of &(B., and the 
little attention given to the later mss. 

(2) The theory of a * Syrian revision.' 

As to (1) it is said that W.H. ignore the probability 
that the late mss. represent lost originals, more in 
number and equal in age to the archetypes of &(B., and 
an attempt is made to support this theory by an appeal 
to Patristic evidence as supporting ^Syrian' readings. 
The reply which advocates of W.H. make (and to the 
present writer it appears valid) is that the only Syrian 
readings which are supported by early Patristic evidence 
are Neutral and Syrian, or Western and Syrian, not 
distinctively Syrian, so that the argument in itself only 
proves, what all admit, that Western readings are very 
early, and that many of them were adopted by the 
Syrian text. 

As to (2), it is said that we have no right to imagine 
a Syrian revision in the third century in the complete 
absence of any reference to it in the writers of the time. 
This is the most important argument which there is 
against the theory of W.H., and it is widely used 
in Germany. But it derives its strength largely from 
a mistaken point of view. W.H.'s theory does not 


depend on the fact of a Syrian revision, but on those 
textual phenomena which have been described, and 
which show that the later text is an eclectic one, made 
up of readings sometimes Neutral, sometimes Western* 
These phenomena vixe facts, which any one who wishes 
can verify by working through Tischendorfs editio 
major viii.^ and noting how the Patristic evidence dates 
the variants. Taking Origen as the earliest full authority 
for the Neutral text, and Irenaeus for the Western, 
with Chrysostom for the late text, it is at once obvious 
that though Chrysostom and Origen often unite in differ- 
ing from Irenaeus, and Chrys. and Iren. in differing from 
Grig. , yet Chrys. does not differ from them both at once. 
And this is almost demonstrative proof that his text, char- 
acteristically representative of the later Fathers' versions 
and Mss., is an eclectic one. 

How can you explain an eclectic text, except by a re- 
vision ? No one has answered this question as yet. But 
if there be any answer, it might be adopted without 
upsetting W.H.'s views in the least. The fact of the 
^Syrian revision' is merely the deduction which W.H. 
drew from the facts. If any one can draw any other 
deduction, well and good. But the facts will not be 
altered, and they prove that the later text is definitely an 
eclectic one, posterior in date, as shown by Patristic 
evidence, both to the Neutral and Western texts. Yet, 
recognising this, it is noticeable that this attack on the 
Syrian revision theory has had three great effects : — 

(1) It has brought home to us the scantiness of the 
evidence which we possess for the earliest periods, especi- 
ally in the East. For when one is asked why there is no 
historical evidence of the revision, it is natural to ask 
where we are likely to find such evidence, and the 
answer seems to be that there is practically no Syriac 
literature of an historical character dating from the third 

(2) Changes of text can be shown to have occurred at 
other times with so little notice, that it is the merest 
accident that we have any record of them. For instance, 
Theodoret, in the fifth century, replaced the Diatessaron 
by some other text, probably the Peshitto, without 


apparently attracting any very great attention {cf, 
p. 37). 

(3) Most important of all, the suspicion has gained 
ground that the B. or Neutral text is itself not im- 
prohahly due to a revision, or, at all events, is not so pure 
as W.H. thought. While the local connection of KB. 
with Caesarea has been strongly brought out, its textual 
connection with Alexandria and Origen has grown more 
evident, and at least two elements in modern research 
suggest that the KB. text is merely an early form of the 
Alexandrian text. These are :— 

(a) The growing conviction of Egyptologists that the 
most primitive Egyptian version is not the Bohairic, but 
rather the Sahidic, which is probably more Western than 

O) The equally growing conviction that the Western 
text has an even greater antiquity and more extended 
prevalence than W.H. imagined. 

The suspicion raised in this way is unfavourable to the 
idea that the Neutral is always right, and will, almost 
certainly, gain further weight when it is more gener- 
ally recognised that (as is pointed out on p. 81) the 
Sinaitic Syriac, the oldest representation of the Oriental 
branch of the Western text, suggests that there is a con- 
siderable class of Neutral interpolations (or Western 
non-interpolations as W.H. call them) which have 
affected every text except the Old Syriac, just as there is 
a similar class which have affected every text except the 
Old Latin and its ally Codex Bezae. 

Such are the chief attacks and modifications which 
W.H.'s theory has suffered. 

II. Besides them there is also an important develop- 
ment of criticism which has not attacked W.H.'s general 
view, but has occupied itself with the problem, which 
W.H. left untouched, of the origin of the Western text. 

This is, however, so important and complex a problem 
that it demands a separate chapter for its discussion. 


Note A. 
The Gospels and Acts. 

The full grouping of authorities, according to W.H.'s 
scheme, for the Gospels would be approximately this ; the 
authorities in brackets have a mixed text. ^ 

Neutral tea;L'—^B[LTSCA in S. Mark NPQRZ] 
[1-209, 33] Boh [Sah Syr"*^''] 
[Origeu Clem^'"]. 
It may be noted that even K boh are not free from 
mixture, though there is so much less that it would give 
a wrong impression to include them in brackets. The 
element of mixture in Sah. Orig. Clem^**^ Meth. is pro- 
bably entirely Pre-Syrian. 

Western text, — D. [ferr. grp.] Lat.""'* [vg]. 
SyrP««h. syycur. Syr"*"- [Syr**'- *='*•""« arm. sah] 
Iren.*^- Iren."**- Tert. Cyprian [Clem^*-] 
[and almost all Latin literature]. 
There are, of course, other Greek mss. which have 
traces, but they are scarcely sufficiently marked to be 
included here. 

Alexandrian text,—[^ChA^X 33, boh sah Clem^^''^- Orig.] 
There is no pure Alexandrian text; it is mostly mixed 
with a Neutral base. L is perhaps the best ms. of it. 

Syrian text, — EGHKMS and in almost all mss. versions 
not mentioned above, also mixed with the other elements in 
[CAX 33, 1-209, ferr. grp. Lat.-ital. vg. ^yv^- Syr'"^'" arm.] 
In the Acts — 

Neutral text— V(B, [61] boh [sah]. 

Western text,—DE 137. Lat^^^esp. d. h. gig. p.e. 

|-gyr^lo^.mg Syj.Pe«h.-] Qy^ Aug. Vigil. 

Alexandrian text, — [NC 61, boh sah Orig.]. 
Syrian text, — Everything else. 

^ The abbreviations used are explained in the note on * Tischen- 
dorfs System of Notation/ p. 92. 


The Pauline Epistles. 

In the Pauline Epistles a grouping can be traced 
somewhat similar to that which exists in the Gospels 
and Acts^ but the characteristics of the texts in each 
case are less marked. The Western text especially has 
far less addition and omission. We get : 

Neutral,— ^B[AC] boh [Orig.]. 

We8tem,~DEFG\B] Old Lat., early Lat. Fathers. 

Alexandrian, — If anywhere in [AC. Orig.]. 
And also a Caesarean group^ fcC^H Euthal. ^ 

It is noticeable that in the Pauline Epistles B has a 
distinctly AV^estern element in places^ so that if it be 
found in combination with DEFG against KAC, the text 
of the latter is sometimes to be regarded as the Neutral. 

The Catholic Epistles. 

The evidence for the text of these epistles is not sufficient 
to allow any definite grouping. It is only possible to 
say that here also KB seem to have the best text^ and the 
Latin to represent a rather different type. One ms. , 
ff=theCorbey S. James^ is noticeable as perhaps repre- 
senting a local version used in the neighbourhood of 
Aquileia, while m. has an ^ African ' text. 

^ Vide Sanday and Headlam's 'Epistle to the Romans.' 



Although not perhaps universally received, the theory 
of Westcott and Hort is certainly the basis of most 
modern textual criticism. But the problem which 
especially exercises the minds of critics is the origin 
of the Western text. It is widely felt that until some 
probable theory can be reached, which will explain 
the curious phenomena found in that group of mss., our 
views on the text of the New Testament as a whole, 
however probable, can only be tentative. 

First of all, then, what is the attestation of the Western 
text? It is found in a widely spread family of mss., 
almost all of them demonstrably containing an early text. 
The chief, members of this family are : — 

D. Iren. The African Latin (k. e. Cyprian). 

The European Latin (a. b. d. i., etc., Iren*^*). 

The Old Syriac (Syr*^-, Syr""', Aphraates, Ephraem) 
with its derivatives, the Arabic Tatian and the 
Armenian version. 

These are the primary authorities, but they often 
receive support from authorities which contain as it were 
a residuum of Western readings, such especially as the 
marginal additions of the Harklean Syriac, the Ferrar 
group, and the Sahidic version. There are also cases 
where the Western reading was adopted by the makers 
of the Syrian revision, and is found in the mass of 
manuscripts. . In this way there is scarcely any ms. 
extant, with the possible exception of B in the Gospels, 
which does not afford some support to some Western 
reading. But of course their support is merelv interesting 


(3) Is it 2 
(1) What 


as throwing a light on the later history of the Western 
text, not on its origin. 

Taking then the comhination D Old Lat. Old Syr. as 
the typical attestation for Western readings, there are 
three preliminary questions which must be discussed 
before it is possible to say anything satisfactory about 
the ultimate origin of the text : — 

(1) What are the characteristic features of the text? 

(2) What is the probable date at which we first find 
traces of it ? 

b a distinct whole, or can we divide it into strata ? 
What are the characteristic features of the text? 
Using the Neutral text as represented by W.H. for a 
standard of comparison, the main characteristics are 
addition, omission, and paraphrastic rendering. 

A few examples will illustrate this : — 

Addition. — In Luke ix. 55, The Western text, as repre- 
sented by (D) e. Cypr. a. b. Svr.-cur. and the late mss. 
which adopted it, reads — ovk oibare woiov TrvcvfAoros core 6 
yap vlos Tov avQptairov ovk ^XBev diroXea-cu aWa aSKrai, 

In Matt XX. 28. The Western text (D*. e. a. b. al. 
Syr. -cur. hi"*) adds — vpels de (rfrelTc ck fiiKpov av^rj<rai 
Koi €K fiei^ovos tXarrpv thai fla-epxofievoi ^e KCLirrapaKKrjBfvrts 
^imfrja-ai tifj dvaKKivca-Be els Toi/s e^exovras rofrovs p,rynoT€ 
€vho^6rr€p6s <rov tTreXBrj koi Trpoa-eXBoiV 6 dciTTVOKX^ro)/} eitrj) 
0"ot*Er4 KUTOD X^P^*" *"' KaTai<rxvvBr](rjj tap dc dvaneaTfs cip 
t6u fJTTova ronov Koi cla-iKBrj trov rJTTOtv ipei aoi 6 btirrvo- 
KKrjrap '2vpay€ €Ti av©, kol tarai froi tovto xph^^i^^* with 
some variants of an unimportant character among the 

OmissioxL — In Luke xxii. 19f. The Western text, as 
directly represented by D. a. and implied by the reading 
of b. e. Syr. -cur., omits to vnep vfiav biBofievov . . . tKxywo- 
fitvov. Thus making it appear that at the institution of 
the eucharist the irorripiov preceded the aprov. 

In Matt, xxvii. 49. The Western text, D. Lat. are the 
real authorities which add weight to omission of oKKos he 
Xafiw Xoyx^y ^vv^ev avrov rriv nXcvpaVf koi e^X^ev t/doop 
Koi aifiay which is found in what are usually the best mss. 

Paraphrase. — In Acts xvi. 12. The Western reading 
(D) for TTpcDTTj is Ke<l>aK-ff. 

In Luke xxiii. 63. D al. pauc. read «rc^iyKev t^ p.vrifi€i<o 


XiBov ov fioyis eucoai €kv\iop, which seems to be merely a 
wild parapnr^e^ in a Homeric spirit.* 

Such then are, roughly speakings the chief charac- 
teristics of the text. Some would perhaps add that there 
is a tendency to make one Gospel harmonise with another. 
This is perhaps true, but it is inadvisable to lay much 
stress on this point for the following reasons : — 

(a) This tendency is not peculiar to Western texts. 
All types of mss. seem to be affected by it more or less, 
especially the later mss. 

O) There is little room for doubt that the labours of 
the higher critics of the Gospels have shown that there is 
a common document lying behind at least much of the 
common tradition of the three Gospels. Therefore this 
is a vera causa which explains verbal agreements in the 
Synoptic Gospels, and renders the question of harmonisa- 
tion of readings an excessively delicate one. 

It is often probable, then, that the Western text 
harmonises, but it is scarcely feir to assume this as a 
general characteristic. 

(2) What is the probable date at which we first find 
traces of the text ? 

The answer to this question is a good example of the 
use of Patristic quotations and the date of versions. So 
fer as Greek mss. go, we have only D of the sixth century 
with any pretensions to an early date, although it is true 
that sporaidic readings of a Western type are found in K, 
and among later mss. there is the Ferrar group. But we 
have in Greek the quotations of Irenaeus^ in the second 
century, and in Latin the Old Latin version, which we 
know to be older than S. Jerome, and which the quota- 
tions of Cyprian and Tertullian take back to the second 
century. And in taking back the Old Latin, these quo- 
tations also take back the Western text. For it is precisely 
these Fathers, especially Cyprian, who appear to have 
habitually used a Western text of the most pronounced 
character, and to have used no other. Therefore we can 

1 Dr. Rendei Harris, in Codex Bezae, tried to show that it is 
actually due to a Latin version written in verse of the stj^le of the 
Homeric centonists; c/., too, his Homeric Centones. 

' Even when only extant in the Latin translation, Irenaeus is 
primarily Greek evidence. 


say with absolute certainty that the Latin version used 
in Africa in the second century was a purely Western 
text. And we have in Irenaeus evidence for the use 
in the Rhone valley, in the second century, of a Greek 
text with much the same markedly Western character 
as that which was perhaps copied in the sane district in 
the sixth century and now survives as Codex Bezae at 

Turning to the East, we find much the same thing, 
although the evidence is not so full. For there is an 
unbroken chain consisting of the Old Syriac mss., the 
quotations of Aphraates and Ephraem, with the connect- 
ing link of the Armenian version of Ephraem's comment 
tary, and Tatian's Diatessaron, which in the same way 
takes the Western text back to the second century. 

Can we do more? There is one generation left in 
which we can be fairly certain that our Gospels were 
used; and one still earlier of which we cannot speak 
certainly. What is the evidence of these two genera- 
tions? The former is represented chiefly by Justin 
Martyr and Marcion. 

The evidence of Marcion is only derived from the 
quotations of Tertullian and Epiphanius, while it is 
• further discounted by the fact that it is known to have 
been a deliberately ^edited' text. At the same time, 
especially when Tertullian agrees with him, and there is 
no question of his own doctrine affecting the reading, 
there is much weight in Marcion's evidence, which on the 
whole seems to point to the use of the Western text. 

The same is true of Justin. There is certainly a 
considerable number of Western readings proved to have 
been read by him. But in his case matters are com- 
plicated by the question as to his quotations as a whole, 
namely, whether he may not have used another document 
as well as our Gospels, or else used a harmony, the exist- 
ence of which is perhaps made probable on independent 
grounds by Tatian's text so far as we know it. It is a 
fact of some significance that thus the earliest Syriac 
shows us the Western text in the form of a harmony 
made by Tatian, and that the earliest Greek evidence is 
that of Tatian's old master, who is also under suspicion 


of having used a harmony. But exactly what con- 
clusions ought to be made from this as to its bearing 
on the Western text is not clear. 

Having thus found traces of the Western text in the 
age of Justin Martyr and Marcion^ it only remains to. 
examine the remnants of the subapostolic literature 
which we have. It is questionable whether this will ever 
be a very profitable task. For (i.) there is a doubt in 
almost all places as to the source from which the quotation 
may be derived. We can never be quite sure that the 
quotations are from the Gospels which we now use. 

(ii.) The text of the writers themselves is often corrupt, 
and fails just at the critical point. So that it is almost 
impossible to say that the subapostolic text is Western, 
while, at the same time, it is certainly more daring to 
say that it is not. 

One instance must suffice : — 

The quotatioxis, apparent or real, in the Didache. — ^There 
are three places in this very early book (perhaps even 
belonging to the first century), which may possibly be 
connected with a use of the Western text, (a) In 1, 2. the 
Didache reads — navra Be oaa eav BeXrjo-rjs /irj yivea-Oal aoi, 
Koi aif oXXo) firf iroiei. This may be a perversion of Matt, 
vii. 12, due to the influence of the Jewish saying attributed 
to Hillel and found in Tobit iv. 15 (6 av fAia-els, SKktoiirf 
TToiel), and with variants in other Jewish books, or it may 
be due to the Western text of Acts xv. 20, 29, where D 
Iren. Cyprian read koI oa-a fitf dikere iavrois yivcaBcu, irepa 
fxrj iroulvy or again it is possible that the Western reading 
is due to the use of the Didache. Different minds may 
consider these possibilities as possessing different values, 
but no one can say that any one of them is impossible. 

(6) In Didache 1, 8. the text cvXoycIre rovs KaTapcauevovs 
vfiiv, Koi irpoaevx'^aBe vnep rav ixOpSav Vfi&v, vri(rT€v€r€ 8e 
xnr€p rap BuoKoPTtav vfias, seems to be nearer S. Matthew 
in the Western form than to anything else, but it is not 
a clear instance, and how are we to explain the unique 
vriaT€V€T€ ? 

The idea of a kind of positive efficacy in fasting is found 
in the Western text of Mark ix. 29, but no ms. has 
anything of the kind in the Sermon on the Mount. 


(c) It is at least more probable than hot that Didache 9 
refers to the Service of Holy Communion, and that 
the writer places the aprov after the norrfpiov. lliis at 
once reminds us of the Western text of Luke, which, as 
mentioned on p. 74, similarly transposes the usual order. 

But the actual details of the passage have nothing to 
point to one Gospel rather than another, and the wording 
of the prayers is more Johannine than Lucan. 

Similar results seem to follow from an examination of 
all the rest of the literature of that date. It is at 
present impossible to affirm or deny the use of the 
Western text. Therefore the result of this glance at the 
evidence for the existence of the Western text in various 
ages and places is this : that it is shown to have existed 
in the earliest times of which we have any certain know- 
ledge — both in Syriac, Latin, and Greek speaking circles ; 
in the East, in Africa, in Italy, and in Gaul. Can we go 
further, and say that it was also found in the Nile valley ? 
Perhaps we can. For the quotations of Clement of 
Alexandria, as recently published in the Cambridge 
Tenets and Studies by Mr. Barnard, seem to show that he 
also used a form of the Western text in Alexandria in 
the second century. This would suggest that the use 
of the Neutral text in Alexandria .began at some date 
between Clement and Origen, — a theory which finds 
support in the view of the more modern Egyptologists 
who date the Sahidic version, with its Western readings, 
earlier than the Bohairic, which is Neutral. 

If this theory be true, we can say that the Western 
text is everywhere found wherever we have any evidence 
for the text of the second century in Patristic quotations. 

But in thus generalising we run the risk of begging 
the question wHen we talk of the Western text having so 
extended a prevalence. Strictly speaking, all that we 
can say is Western readings are found. The Western 
readings in Latin sources are not the same in all cases 
as those in Syriac ones, and we have no right to 
construct an hypothetical original text, containing* 
readings for which there is only the authority of one of 
these versions, unless we are prepared to show that the 
other has been corrected by a Neutral source. 


This naturally leads us to the consideration of the 
last preliminary question : — 

(3) Is the Western text a clearly defined whole^ or can we 
divide it up into groups or strata ? 

The importance of this question is, that if the latter 
alternative he shown to he prohahle there is a presump- 
tion of considerable strength that we have to deal, at 
least in part, with successive layers of corruptions. And 
on the whole the existence of groups and strata is fairly 

It is not a point which has been fully worked out at 
present, but, as Mr. Burkitt has shown, the interpolations 
of the Western text do seem to fall into three main 
divisions ; — 

(a) Latin interpolations, greater, 
(/3) Latin interpolations, lesser, 
(y) S)rriac interpolations. 

Of these, (a) comprises such passages as the ^ pericope 
adulterae,' John vii. 53-viii. 12, or the appearance of a 
light at the resurrection, Mark xvi. 3. 

These are especially characteristic of the African 
Latin ; many of them are also found in the European 
Latin ; comparatively few would probably find a place 
in a critical reconstruction of the Old Syriac. 

O) The second class contains small additions, as that of 
Koi 6 (Tvvl<iiv (rvvUro) in Mark iv. 9. In character they are 
easily distinguishable from the greater interpolations. 
They are shorter, and almost always suggested by the 
context ; they very rarely add a new fact, or tell a new 
story. The greater interpolations, on the other hand, are 
usually bold additions, some of them strikingly original 
and apparently primitive, which often seem to be due to 
some tradition external to the general current of the 
evangelical narrative. 

As their character differs, so also does their attestation ; 
for while the African Latin was seen to be the stronghold 
of the greater interpolations, the European Latin is the 
text which is especially characterised by the smaller ones. 
Moreover, in this case also the oldest Syriac text would 
seem to have omitted most of them. 

(y) The Syriac interpolations are not in character 


unlike the ^ greater ' interpolations of the African Latin. 
For their attestation we have to rely chiefly on the 
Sinaitic S3rriac. A characteristic pair are the preserva- 
tion of the tradition that Barahbas name was Jesus^ and 
the addition in Luke xxiii. : Woe to us^ woe^ etc. 

The most useful list and statement of these three 
classes of interpolations will be found in Mr. Burkitt's 
Old Latin and the Itala (Texts and Studies, iv. 3). 
V We may perhaps put aside the smaller interpolations 
i" of the European Latin, a manifestly later form of the 
Latin text than that represented by the African version, 
though it is an interesting question whether the omission 
of the longer ones by the European is due to excision 
or to the prevalence at the beginning of a different type 
of text, which afterwards was contaminated by a set of 
small corruptions which did not affect the African. 

But however that may be, we certainly have the two 
classes of greater Latin and Syriac interpolations. 

At the same time it must be remembered that, as was 
shown in Chapter HI., there is evidence for the theory 
that the Latin and Syriac versions once lived side by 
side, and the common text which they exhibit certainly 
does contain some of the most remarkable of Western 
readings, such^ for instance, as the addition to John iii. 6 : 
' For God is a Spirit.' 

And if we turn to the question of omissions we 
find the same phenomenon. There are two distinct 
groups : 

(a) Latin omissions. 
(6) Syriac omissions. 

(a) The Latin omissions are curiously distributed : there 
are no less than eight important omissions in Luke xxiv. 
(all of which omissions W.H. recognise as correct, and 
call non-interpolations). But these do not stand abso- 
lutely alone, e,g. the omission in Matt, xxvii. 49 stands 
on precisely the same evidence ; for the testimony of the 
late Mss., and therefore of the textus receptus, does not 
affect the point materially. 

Just as was the case with the interpolations, the 
evidence of the Syriac version is usually against the 
Latin omissions, though there is a residuum which is 


attested by both, which may be called Latin or Syriac 

(b) The Syriac omissions as represented by the Sinaitic 
Syriac are more numerous than the Latin, and more evenly 
distributed ; but, of course, owing to the lamentable loss 
of almost all early Syriac evidence, there is not the 
wealth of attestation which is available for Latin read- 
ings. A full list is found in the introduction to Mrs. 
Lewises The Sinaitic Palimpsest retranscribed. Typical and 
interesting examples are the omission of Matt. xii. 9; 
Luke xxiii. 11, 12 ; John xiv. 10, 11. 

Thus we get both in omission and interpolation the 
same phenomena of a double line, Latin and Syriac, each 
having its own characteristic readings, with a residuum 
of important passages common to both. 

On the whole, therefore, the answers to the three 
questions raised, as preliminary to the discussion of the 
problem of the origin of the Western text, are these : — 

(1) The characteristic features of the teat are addition, 
omission, paraphrase, 

(2) The text can be traced back to the earliest times of 
which we have knowledge, and in every part of Christendom, 
with the possible, but not probable, exception of Alexandria 
and the Nik Valley, 

(3) We can trace at least two strata in the Western 
teat, separated not by characteristics, but by attestation, one 
represented by the Latin texts, the other by the Syriac. 
There is a common residuum of readings which do not differ 
in internal characteristics from those which are peculiar to 
either branch. 

The main question is, then, open for discussion. It is. 
What is the origin of the text which presents these re- 
markable phenomena } 

The theories which have been suggested may be divided 
into two groups : — 

' (1) Those which assert the primitiveness of the Western 

(2) Those which regard it as a series of corrupt 

As to the first group. Before looking at that form of 
the theory which is most before the public at p;resent. 


it will be well to notice the features of the Western text 
which have impressed critics with its primitiveness. 
These are, first, some of the interpolations in the Gospels, 
such as the story ^ of the man working on the Sabbath, 
and a somewhat greater number of the interpolations in 
the Acts, which seem to be of so striking a character that 
they can scarcely be false. And secondly, the omissions, 
more particularly the Latin omissions ^the Syriac omis- 
sions have not been long enough known), which it is said 
are incredible if the original text had not made the same 

So far as the omissions go, many scholars have agreed 
that intrinsic probability declares sti'ongly in favour of 
the Western text, and W.H.'s view, with later develop- 
ments, will be found summarised on p. 85. But in its 
entirety the view that the Western is the most primitive 
form of the text has found few suppoi-ters. Bornemann, 
it is true, did make an effort to explain all other variants 
a& corruptions of the Western text, but his views have 
never obtained many followers, and he may be safely 
disregarded. Of recent years, however. Professor Blass 
has made an attempt to rehabilitate the Western text 
without giving up the Neutral. The Gospel of S. Luke 
and the Acts are the starting-point of his investigation. 
Indeed, his theory as a whole applies to those documents 

It is this. There are many places in the Lucan narra- 
tives where the intrinsic probability of either the Western 
or Neutral reading is convincing; where, in fact, it is 
inconceivable that any one having either reading before 
him would deliberately alter it to the other. Each read- 
ing has all the marks of originality. 

The only possible theory, says Professor Blass, is that 
the author himself actually wrote both, or, in other 
words, that we possess a first and second edition of the 
writings of S. Luke. 

The details of this theory are interesting. The history 

^ Luke vi. 4, D, d. add : ry avrfi vf^PI!' deaadfievia^rivo. ipya- 
vbfiGvov T(fi (Ta^^aTip elrrev aiir^, "Avdpojrre el fji^v oldas tI iroteij 
jULcucdpios el' el dk fiij oldas ^Trt/cardparos Kal TrapajSdri/s el roO 


of the Lucan writings, according to the learned critic, 
is as follows : — 

Luke wrote the first edition of his Gospel from Caesarea 
to Theophilus, who may have heen a Roman official 
somewhere in the neighbourhood. After writing this 
he went to Rome, and then wrote a second edition of 
the Gospel for the use of the local Church. This was 
the Western text of the Gospel, which Blass calls the 
Roman text. He also wrot^ at the same time for the 
Romans his first edition of the Acts, and afterwards made 
another copy and sent it to Theophilus, which was the 
archetype of the Neutral text of Acts. 

He suggests, then, the following arrangement for the 
Lucan books : — 

.^ 1 /(I) To Theophilus from Caesarea,! Neutral text. 
uospei-^^2^ p^j.j^^^^jj^j^^j.^jj^ ./Western „ 

^ . r(3) For Roman Church, . .1 Western ,, 
Acts j^^^ rp^ Theophilus from Rome, ./Neutral „ 

This is an ingenious theory ; it is not a priori im- 
possible ; it has the weight of anything coming from so 
great a scholar as Blass. It is not possible in the limits 
of a small book either to do it justice, or to explain fully 
the case against it. 

It must suffice to point out that the main reason why 
almost all scholars are inclined to reject it is that it 
does not recognise the fact that there are strata in the 
Western text. 

This cannot be shown so clearly in the Acts as in the 
Gospel. But in the latter the case in favour of strata 
is overwhelming (vide p. 79 f.). Now, granted that there 
are strata, the deduction is this : — 

The two great authorities for the earliest text of a 
Western type are the African Latin and the Old Syriac. 

The ordinary conclusion from this is that the Western 
text represents a series of accretions from some source 
which we cannot yet identify, and which is not a 
homogeneous whole. It would be argued that so far as 
the places where the Latin and Syriac disagree are con- 
cerned, we have in addition to the evidence for the 
Neutral text, ^ ia homogeneous whole, the evidence 


that the earliest Western text (i.e. the common arche- 
type of Latin and Syriac) agreed with the reading of the 
Neutrals. The only way in which this argument could 
be invalidated would be by showing that the Western 
authority which agreed with the Neutral text had been 
corrected to a Neutral standard. But in the case of 
the Sinaitic Syriac and the African Latin all the evidence 
is against such a theory. 

Failing this, it would be necessary to put into the 
^second edition' only those places where the Western 
evidence is complete. But this is just what Blass has 
not done. He has put down as belonging to the primi- 
tive Western text all the passages for which there is a 
shred of Western evidence. 

Therefore it is felt that Blass's edition cannot be taken 
to represent the earliest form of the Western text even 
on his own theory. 

The earliest form would be based on the concurrence 
of the Latin and Syriac. Undoubtedly it would contain 
many interesting variants, but it is doubtful whether 
these would be so many, or so different in character from 
those which would have to be acknowledged to be later 
accretions, as to justify his view, though it might justify 
the adoption of many Western readings in preference to 
Neutral ones. 

Therefore, although Professor Blass's work is stimulat- 
ing and useful in drawing attention to the early date 
and valuable character of Western readings, perhaps even 
their primitive originality, his theory of double editions 
does not commend itself for acceptance. 

Leaving, then, that class of theory which consider^he 
Western -text as primitive, we find several views set 
forward which seek to explain the phenomena on the 
assumption of a later date. The theories of this kind 
which hold the field at present are — 

(1) Dr. Rendel Harris — Latinisation. 
^ (2) Dr. Chase — Syriacisation. 

Dr. Ramsay — Revision by an Asiatic scribe. 
Dr. Resch — Effect of other translations of the 
supposed Hebrew original. 

But before looking at these theories, it is necessary to 


examine W.H/s treatment of the Western text; for, 
except in the case of Resch, their view is the starting- 
point of all the other suggestions. Stated roughly, their 
view is that the Western text can be explained, so far 
as interpolations go, as a series of corruptions of the 
Neutral text, none of them authentic in the sense of 
belonging to the true text of the canonical writings, but 
some of them possibly preserving early and original 
traditions taken from some other source either written or 
oral. They do, however, accept the Latin omissions (the 
only ones known at the time) as authentic, on the ground 
of transcriptional probability. The words omitted they 
consider to be due to some element of corruption which 
attacked the Neutral text after the Western had split off; 
and, as in the case of the Western interpolations, they 
reserve the possibility that the additions represent a true 
though not an evangelical tradition. 

This position is the starting-point of the four theories 
which have to be discussed. They are, all of them, 
attempts to work out on these lines, but more definitely, 
the causes which have produced the Western variants. 

(1) Dr. Rendel Harris. — In his study of Codex Bezae 
the Cambridge critic endeavours to show that many of 
the readings of this Western manuscript are due to easily 
recognisable causes. He tabulates them accordingly very 
completely, but it is impossible to do more than give a 
short summary of the chief results of these ingenious 
researches. He endeavours to show that most of the 
Western interpolations in the Acts are due to an early 
Montanist scribe. For instance, he points to the numer- 
ous instances in which the Western reading refers to the 
indwelling of the Holy Spirit — a doctrine on which the 
Montanists laid great stress, — such, for example, as the 
addition in Acts xv. 29 to the injunctions to Gentile 
converts, ev npa^are ^epo/xci/ot iv ra dyia irvevfiari,^ or 
Acts xix. 1, where the Western text adds BfKovros be tov 
UavKov Kara rrjv i8iav fiovXfjv iropcveaBai els UpoaoXvfia 
€Lir€v avrS to nvevfia dyiov VTroorpt'^etv els rr^v 'Actav. 

1 Even if this be a misplaced gloss, the explanation of the 
glossator's point of view would be th^ same. 


Here^ of course^ the purpose of the glossator is to explain 
S. Paul's change of plan^ but Dr. Rendel Harris's point 
is that the method of the explanation is Montanistic. 

Similarly, in S. Luke he traces many readings to the 
influence of Marcion. For instance, he points out that 
the Western text of Luke ix. 54, 55, which adds the words 
its KOL *HXiaff €7roiT}(T€v' Koi crTTov ovK oidarc noiov nvevfiaTos 
€ar€, may be well compared with the fact that Marcion 
in his dvTiBea-tis uses this incident of Elijah to support 
his theory that the God of the Old Testament is different 
from the God who sent His Son into the world. 

He tries to show that these interpolations, or at least 
some of them, were made primarily in the Latin side of 
a supposed bilingual original. 

For instance, the Bezan text of Acts i. 2 adds the gloss 
KOI €K€\€V(r€v KT]pv(r(r€w TO cifayycXiov = et praecepit praedi- 
care evangelium. Probably this is an explanation of the 
word €VT€i\dfA€vos, which comes just before, and is trans- 
lated by praecepit ; in which case it is obvious that the 
glossator is working on a Latin text, taking his cue, as 
it were, from the praecepit, repeating and explaining it. 
Had the gloss originated in the Greek, we should expect 
€V€T€LkaTo ', aud had the Latin been a translation of 
€K€\€var€Vy we should have expected its almost invariable 
equivalent ^jussit.* 

In this way Dr. Rendel Harris suggested that almost 
all the ^Festern additions might be explained. And he 
has also endeavoured in a pamphlet on the Diatessaron 
of Tatian to throw a little further light on the Latin 
omissions or ^ non-interpolations.' He draws attention to 
the presence both in Tatian and in the Curetonian of the 
passages omitted by the Latin authorities, and suggests 
that the explanation of the presence of the so-called non- 
interpolations is that there was a Pre-Tatianic harmony 
which included the words omitted, and that this affected 
all texts except the non-interpolating Latins. Of course. 
Dr. Rendel Harris was writing before the discovery of 
the Sinaitic Syriac Codex ; and the light which that ms. 
has thrown on the Syriac side of the Western text, and 
number of omissions to which it testifies, would probably 
make him reconsider this point. It would be necessary 


to judge whether the Syriac omissions are similar in 
character to the Latin or not^ and to consider whether 
it would be conceivable that there was yet another har- 
mony to account for the Syriac omissions. The answer 
would scarcely be affirmative. 

On the whole, probably Dr. Rendel Harris himself 
would not claim that his theory is a complete solution of 
the problem. But the value of a book to students is 
more often to be found in its suggestiveness than its com- 
pleteness, and from this point of view few books are 
more valuable than Dr. Rendel Harris's. Apart from 
this, the permanent element in it is perhaps its demon- 
stration of the multiplicity of strata in the Western text, 
and the emphasis laid on the influence of versions and 

(2) Dr. Chase. — Dr. Chase's theory is similar to that of 
Dr. Rendel Harris, in that he seeks a cause for the 
Western text in the influence of versions. But he con- 
siders the Syriac version rather than the Latin to be 
the originating cause. That is to say, that just as Dr. 
Rendel Harris traces the Western text to an original 
Graeco-Latin bilingual, so Dr. Chase traces it to an 
original Graeco-Syriac. And just as Dr. Rendel Harris 
traces his text to some centre of Latin Christianity, so 
Dr. Chase traces his to Antioch. 

The arguments by which Dr. Chase supports his view 
are roughly these : — 

(1) In certain readings Syriac idioms seem to be re- 
produced, e,g, in Luke ix. 16 the Bezan text is €v\6yr)(T€v 
in avTovsy which is said to be a literal translation of the 
ordinary Syriac construction. 

(2) In other cases there are examples of forms of ex- 
pression characteristic of Syriac, e,g» in John xxi. 7 the 
Bezan text is Xeyct ... 6 Kvpios ia-riv fjfi&v ; where the 
addition of rjfi&v is accounted for by Dr. Chase, by the fact 
that such is the usual Syriac form of Kvpios when used of 
Christ. [This might well be true of other languages ; it 
is of English.] 

(3) Sometimes two glosses in different mss. are appar- 
ently traceable to one original Syriac gloss, e.g, in Matt, 
xxvi. 59 flf. D reads koL ovx €^pov to e^rjs koI ttoXXoI 


irpoarjkOov yfrevbofrnpTvpcs koi ovx eZpov to eji/f, where in 
several Latin texts the second e^iyy is represented by 
culpam or some cognate expression. Dr. Chase explains 
this as due to the influence of a Syriac word, which 
means both ^against' and also ^ after.' 

Probably what is generally felt about most of this kind 
of criticism is that it is a little too ingenious. It is easy 
to believe that the Syriac text has left many marks on 
the Greek^ but more difficult to imagine that this is 
entirely a satisfactory explanation of all the Western 
readings^ or even of most of them. The impartial ob- 
server is inclined to set Dr. Rendel Harris against Dr. 
Chase, and to consider that the theory of each is partially 
true and explains some readings, while neither entirely 
solves the whole problem. 

Mention, however, should perhaps be made of that 
part of Dr. Chase's theory which, building on a review 
by Dr. Sanday, connects the Western text with 
Antioch. If we admit that the bond between the Old 
Latin and Old Syriae texts is close, and not confined 
to one layer or stratum of text alone, or to readings 
of a primitive character, we must look for the birthplace 
of the text in some district which was acquainted with 
both languages. But Latin was spoken in Roman official 
circles all over the world, while Syriac can scarcely have 
been well known in the West. Therefore we seem 
almost forced, paradoxical though it seem, to suppose an 
Eastern origin for the Latin version ; and if so, Antioch * 
is, on the whole, more probable than anywhere else, for 
the following reasons: — 

* (1) It is known to have been the home of an early and 
vigorous Christianity. 

(2) It was undoubtedly bilingual or multilingual. 

(3) It was in close communication with the rest of the 

world, standing in the great trade route from 
East to West. 

(4) It was of considerable importance in the Roman 

world as a centre of government. 
This is important, for there are some indications of 
superior knowledge of Roman administration and official 
language in the VFestern text, e.g. the knowledge shown 


in Luke that the proper title of Pontius Pilate was eni- 
rpoTTOs, not rjyefjLav, 

(3) Professor RamBay.— In his two important hooks on 
the Life and ^Vork of S. Paul, The Church in the Roman 
Empire, and ^S. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, 
Professor Ramsay has made many suggestive remarks on 
the Western text in the Acts. He inclines to the view 
that the Western readings are due to a very early 
glossator who had a particularly good knowledge of 
Oriental geography and customs. 

Many of the examples adduced by Professor Ramsay 
are strikingly convincing when taken in connection 
with the archaeological information which he is able to 
supply. For instance, no commentator had ever seen 
anything peculiar in the fact that the ordinary %ext^ 
makes S. Paul go from Caesarea to Jerusalem in one 
stage. But Professor Ramsay is able to show that this 
is an impossibility, and at the same time' to point to the 
Western text, which explains that S. Paul was accom- 
panied by Mnason, with whom he stayed the night at a 
village on the road, llius he shows that the Western , 
glossator had a knowledge of the conditions of travel in ' 
those regions so intimate as to notice a point which has 
escaped the notice of all other commentators. Such 
examples — and Professor Ramsay gives a great number 
of them — are very hard to resist. We feel that we must 
admit the accuracy and primitiveness of the Western 
text. What we doubt is (1) whether Professor Ramsay 
is equally safe in confining the knowledge of the glossator 
to Oriental subjects. Does not, for instance, the refer- 
ence in Acts xxviii. 16 to the arpaTonrchapxpSy whom 
Mommsen has identified with the ^Princeps pere- 
grinorum,' fall into the same category .»* (2) Whether 
such good work is really that of a glossator. 

Of course. Professor Blass hails these results as con- 
firming his theory of two editions both equally primitive 
and original, and both written by the same author. It 
must be admitted that Professor Ramsav's arguments do 
seem to point to the Western text as at least as primitive 

^ Acts xxi. 16. 


as the ordinary type. But the arguments adduced when 
discussing Professor Blass's theory hold good. There- 
fore what is needed is some theory which will uphold 
the primitiveness to which Professor Ramsay's theory 
points^ and yet will avoid the difficulties to which Pro- 
fessor Blass's idea, that both types of text are due to the 
same author, has been seen to be liable. 

Professor Reach. — ^This German critic has published 
in two large books in the Texts und Untersuchungen 
series a theory of his own about the Synoptic problem. 
So far as this theory concerns textual criticism it may 
be put shortly thus : — There was, according to Professor 
Resch, an original Hebrew document which was the 
source of a great part of our present Gospels. This was 
extant in its primitive form after it had been used by 
the compilers of our Gospels ; and we can reconstruct it 
by a comparison of the ordinary texts of the present 
Gospels with each other, and also by the variant forms 
found in the early Fathers, and those in the Western 
texts, which he regards as often due to various transla- 
tions of the Hebrew original which they knew. There 
is no need to discuss this theory, which finds but few 
adherents in its entirety, but it is interesting from the 
point of view of the textual critic as a curious attempt 
to reconcile those phenomena which have made Blass 
regard the Western text as equally primitive with the 
ordinary type, and Drs. Chase and Rendel Harris 
attribute it largely to the influence of versions reacting 
on the Greek. It is also, perhaps, more important for 
drawing attention to the fact that the textual critic of 
the Gospels at all events, and probably also of the Acts, 
has to consider the Questions raised by the higher 
criticism, and ask whetner some of the phenomena which 
puzzle him may not be due to the disturbing influence of 
the sources used by the compiler of the documents. 

Such are the chief theories which have recently been 
put before the public. None of them even claims to be 
final, but all must be studied by any one who wishes 
really to master the problems of textual criticism. Per- 
haps the general result is to make it probable that W.H. 
(largely from lack of evidence) underestiniated the 


possibility that a consensus of the Old Latin and Old 
Syriac may ^ive us a really primitive text even when 
opposed to the great uncials ; but even if that were to 
be proved, and the text reconstructed on these lines, the 
problem is not fully solved. We often have readings in 
which either variant is possible, and neither is decisively 
the better. What is to be said as to the origin of the 
readings which are rejected ? That is the problem which 
has to be faced. At present it has scarcely been touched, 
and it would be out of place to say anything at length on 
the point ; but the present writer cannot help thinking 
that the solution of the origin of the Western interpola- 
tions, or Neutral interpolations, is connected somehow 
with the sources of the New Testament rather than with 
its text. It is a remarkable fact that the prominent 
features of the Western text exist in the Gospels and 
Acts, which are based on documents of an earlier date, 
but are to a large extent wanting in the Epistles, which 
are free compositions unconnected with other writings. 
It is therefore well to keep in mind the possibility that 
we have cases in the text of the Gospels and Acts of 
readings which are authentic in so far as they are part 
of the ^source-document,' but unauthentic in the sense 
that the compiler did not use them, and which owe their 
presence in any text of the New Testament to the re- 
action of the sources on the text of the compilation. 

It may also be well to say one more word to any one 
who proposes to study the Western problems. Begin 
with the Acts ; — not because the material for criticism is 
greater, but in spite of the fact that it is less. For the 
Western readings in the Acts are easier to judge, because 
they are bojund from the nature of the book to deal more 
frequently with questions of geographical and archaeo- 
logical detail which can be readily tested. The Gospels, 
on the other hand, more usually supply Western read- 
ings which deal with sayings and facts which can only 
be judged by the criterion of a priori probability. It is 
therefore the correct method to study the Western read- 
ings in Acts first of all, and to form some kind of judgment 
on them, and after this to turn to the Gospels and apply to 
them the conclusions derived from the study of the Acts. 



A KNOWLEDGE of the 83nnbols and abbreviations commonly 
employed in textual criticism is essential to every student of the 
New Testament. 

Some of these have been explained in the preceding chapters, 
but for general convenience these have been repeated here, 
together with all the others which are in general use. The 
multiplication of these symbols is an ever-growing evil ; and as 
no two writers seem to employ quite the same method, it is 
impossible to escape occasional misunderstandings. But since 
the basis of all other systems at the present day is that of 
Tischendorf, ed. viii., the necessary foundation of study is an 
acquaintance with his notation. The best way will be to take 
an example and go through its details. 

In M* 5,44. ayavdre roifs ixOpoifS vM-dv. Tischendorf s note 
is : — 

T. €x0p v/Jk<ov c. K B 1 22 209 al* a b fP- gi- 2. k 1 vg sax fr cop 
gyjcur Thphiis. 14. Or 4.884.829.351. jtem i.7«8- 4.363. Dial 20 Eusi* »w 

Ifint 210 Cyp*®*" al t (Gb<>0) add evXoycLTe rovs KarapufjLeyovs 

vfxas (D vfiuf, Athen om) c. DEKLMSUAII al pier c f h go 8yr«*» 
etP arm aeth Athen »e8»*ii Clewfi^ (omnino propter sqq e M' 
vdtr) EusP'^P 18.7 (omnino e M* vdtr) ConstL 2. Chr : : cf L« |. 

The first thing to notice in this mass of symbols is the 

and the | at the end. These are the sign posts implies 

that the list of authorities for the variant Quoted has been 
exhausted, and that the alternatives will now oe given. The | 
signifies Nhe close of the whole passage under discussion. Had 
there beei\a third variant, there would have been some more 
after *cf L«' instead of the |. 

It appears, therefore, that in this passage there are two 
readings : — 

!a) ayavciTe toi>5 iyfipoifs vtiwv, 
jS) ^yairdTe tovs ixOpoifS vfiQv, cdKoyeire Toi/s Karaptafihom 

Of these (a) is Tischendorf s reading, and therefore he first 
gives it and the authorities for it, introducing the latter with a 
c=cMm. (jS) is the reading of s (Gb®o). This is a highly complex 
abbreviation. The first part {e) is itself a compound symbol. It 
represents the text of Stephanus, followed by £)lzevir, Schulz, and 


Griesbach. Now, although the agreement of these three editions 
with Stephanus is fairly consistent, there are many places where 
pne or the other differs. In these cases Tischendorf ^ practice is 
to indicate the reading of the editor or editors who aiffer from 
Stephanus by inserting a ' bracket ' after ^ , and using the follow- 
ing symbols: ?•'= Elzevir, Sz=»Schulz, Gb= Griesbach, '=* thinks 
it probable,' "=* thinks it very probable, <'=* prefers the other 
variant,' <*= * strongly prefers the other variant. So that $ (Gb^) 
in this passage means, * The reading of Stephanus, Elzevir, Schulz, 
and Griesbach ; but Griesbach strongly prefers the other reading.' 
There then follows the list of authorities in their proper places 
for each reading. These authorities are always quoted m the 
same order. 

1. Greek uncials, quoted by capital letters. 

2. Greek cursives, quoted by numbers as a rule. 

3. The Latin authorities, with notice of the more important 
Mss. individually. 

4. Other versions. 

5. Patristic quotations with references. 

To continue, therefore, the explanation of the note in question : 
Tischendorf means that the shorter reading is supported by the 
Greek uncial mss. fc?B (for the names, etc., of the uncial mss., see 
Appendix B) ; by the minuscule or cursive mss. 1. 22. 209. and 
al ^ i.e. four others ; by the Old Latin mss. a. b, ff^. g^, g^. k. 1. 
(names, etc., of these also are in Appendix B) ; and the Vulgate 
(vg) ; also by the two secondary versions, sax. =the Anglo-Saxon, 
and fr.=the FranMsh, both of which are derivatives of the Latin ; 
by the Coptic version, now called the Bohairic; and by the 
Curetonian Syriac. 

It is also supported by Theophylact, Origen, and an anonymous 
tract known as the 'Dialogus de recta fide ' (Dial.), by Eusebius 
in his commentary on the Psalms (Eusp".), by the Latin transla- 
tion of Irenaeus (Iren*"*=Irenaei interpres), bv three quotations 
of the passage in Cyprian, and by others (al*)* In the case of 
each Father quoted the reference to the standard edition (usually 
the Benedictine) is given in small figures, e.g. Orig *'824= Origen, 
vol. iv. p. 324. 

In the same way, the longer reading adopted by Stephanus, 
etc., is supported hy the uncials DEKLMSUAII and most other 
Greek mss. (al. pier.), by c. f. h. of the Old Latin, by the Gothic 
version (go), the Peshitto (syr"*^, i.e. Schaff's Syriac v. p. 40), 
and the Harklean Syriac (SyrP=Syra posterior), the Armenian, 
and the Aethiopic. It is also supported by Clement of Alexandria, 
Eusebius in his Praeparatio Evangelica, the 'Apostolic con- 
stitutions ' (const.), and Chrysostom. In the case of Clement and 
Eusebius, Tischendorf indicates in brackets that there are reasons 
for believing that the quotation is from M^ not L^, and the 
sign : : cf . L*' at the end means that he thinks that the reading is 
due to assimilation to the text of Luke. 



*A(v.) c 

MSS. of the Gospels 

1 cod. Sinaiticus, at S. Petersburg. 
I cod. Alexandrinus, in the British Museum. 
*B (iv.) cod. Vaticanus, at Rome, in the "Vatican. 
*C(v.) cod. Ephraemi, a palimpsest at Paris, 
*D(vi.) cod. Bezae, Graeco-Latin, at Cambridge. 
E(yiii.) cod. Basileensis, at Basel, in Switzerland. 
F(ix.) cod. Boreeli at Utrecht, formerly belonging to John 
Boreel (1629). 
G (ix.-x.) cod. Seidelii, in the British Museum, brought from the 
East by Andrew Seidel early in the eighteenth 
H (ix.-x.) cod. Seidelii, at Hamburg; its history is the same as G's. 
I (v.-vi.) some palimpsest fragments at S. Petersburg. 

K (ix.) cod. Cyprius, at Paris, brought from Cyprus in 1673. 
*L(viii.) cod. Biegius, at Paris. 
M(ix.) cod. Campianus, at Paris, given to Louis xiv. by the 

Abb^ FrauQois de Camps. 
N(vi.) cod. Purpureus, at Patmos, S. Petersburg, Rome, 

Vienna, and the British Museum. 
P(vi.) fragm. Guelpherbytana i., palimpsest fragments at 

Q(v.) fragm. Guelpherbytana ii., palimpsest fragments at 

R(vi.) cod. Nitriensis, a palimpsest fragment in the British 
Museum, brought in 1847 from the monastery of 
S. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian desert. 
S (dated 949) cod. Vaticanus ii., at Rome. 

T (v.) cod. Borgianus, in the Propaganda at Rome, a Graeco- 
Sahidic hs. 
T^ and T«(vi.) Graeco-Sahidic fragments at S. Petersburg, 
•pwoi (yi \ a Graeco-Sahidic fragment in the Bodleian at Oxford. 
U(ix.-x.) cod. Nanianus, at Venice. 

V(ix.) cod. Mosquensis, belonging to the Holy Synod at 

1 These figures indicate the century to which the ms. is assigned. 
* See also Chapter II. 


"Wabodef fragments at Paris, Naples, S. Gall, Trinity College 
Cambridge, Christ Church Library Oxford, and the 
Wake Library Oxford. 
X(ix.-x.) cod. Monacensis, in the University Library, Munich. 
Y(viii.) Fragmenta Barberina, in the Barberini Library at 
Z(vi.) cod. Dublinensis, a palimpsest at Trinity College, 
r (dated 979), at Oxford and S. Petersburg, brought by Tischen- 
dorf from * the East,' probably Sinai. 
A(x.) cod. Sangallensis, a Graeoo-Latin ms. at S. Gall in 
O (vii. ?) fragments at Leipzig. 
A(ix.) cod. Tischendorfianus, in the Bodleian, brought from 
*the East' by Tischendorf. 
* S(viii.) cod. Zacynthius, a palimpsest in the library of the 
British and Foreign Bible Society, London, 
n (ix.) cod. Petropolitanus, at S. Petersburg. 

Besides these mss. known to Tischendorf, a few others have 
since been lettered as follows : — 

2) (vi.) cod. Bossanensis, a * purple' ms. like N, at Bossano in 
S. Italy. 

# (v.) cod. Beratinus, another 'purple' ms. at Berat in Mace- 
^ (viii.) cod. Laurensis, at the Laura on Mount Athos. 

Ci (x.) cod. Dionysiacus, at the monastery of S. Dionysius on 
Mount Athos. 

2 (x.) cod. Andreensis, at the 'scete' of S. Andrew on Mount 
And a few other small fragments. 

MSS, of the Acts and Catholic Epistles. 

KABCD. The same as in the Gospels. 
*E(vii.) cod. Laudianus, a Latino-Greek ms., probably written 
in Sardinia, used by Bede, and given by Lau^ to the 
H (ix.) cod. Mutinensis, at Modena. 
K/ix.) cod. Mosquensis, at Moscow. Acts is missing. 
L(ix.) cod. Angelicus, in the library of the Augustinians in 

P(ix.) cod. Porphyrianus, a palimpsest at S. Petersburg, for- 
merly belonging to Bishop Porphyry. 
S (ix.-x.) cod. Laurensis ii., at the Laura, Mount Athos. 

2 (v.) fragm. Patiriensia, palimpsest fragments formerly at 
Bossano, now in the Vatican. 


MSS. of the Pauline Epistles. 

KABC. As for the Gospels. 

*D (vi.) cod. Claromontanus, a Graeco-Latin ms. at Paris, for- 
merly at Clermont, near Beauvais. 

*£(ix.) cod. Sangermanensis, a Graeco-Latin ms. at S. Peters- 
burg, formerly at S. Germain des Prez, a copy 

^F(ix.) cod. Augiensis, a Graeco-Latin ms. at Trinity College, 
Cambridge, formerly in the monastery of Augia 
Dives at Beichenau, on Lake Constance. 
*G(x.) =A of the Grospels. cod. Boernerianus, at Dresden, 
formerly belonged to C. F. Boemer of Leipeic. 
Perhaps the Greek was copied from F. 

*H (vi.) cod. Coislinianus, fragments at Paris, S. Petersburg, 
and at the Laura, Mount Athos. 

K.L.P. As of the Acts and Catholic Epistles. 

MSS, of the Apocalypse, 

fc<AC. As of the Grospels. 
B(yiii.) cod. Vaticanus iii., at Rome. 
P. As of the Acts. 

The Old Latin MSS. The Gospels. 

a. (iv.) cod. Vercellensis, a * purple 'ms. at Vercelli, said to 
have been written by Bishop Eusebius (370). 
b. (iv.-v.) cod. Veronensis, at Verona. 
c. (xii.) cod. Colbertinus, at Paris, 
d. (vi.) The Latin of D, at Cambridge, 
e. (iv.-v.) cod. Palatinus, at Vienna, formerly at Trent, a 
* purple ' MS. 
f. (vi.) cod. Brixianus, at Brescia, 
ffi (viii.-ix.) cod. Corbeiensis i., at S. Petersburg, formerlv at 
Corbey, near Amiens. Sometimes quoted as f. for 
the Catholic Epistles, 
ffg (vi.) Corbeiensis ii., at Paris, formerly at Corbey. 
gj (ix.) cod. Sangermanensis i., at Paris, formerly at S. Ger- 
gs (x.) cod. Sangermanensis ii., at Paris, originally at Angers, 
h. (iv.-v.) cod. Claromontanus, now in the Vatican. 

i. (vii.) cod. Vindobonensis, at Vienna, formerly at Naples, 
j. (v.) cod. Sarzannensis, a * purple' ms. at Sarezzano, near 


k. (vi.) cod. Bobiensis, at Turin, formerly at Bobbio, and said 

to have belonged to Oolumban. 
1. (vii.) cod. KhedigeranuB, at Breslau. 

m. * Liber de divinis ScriptTiris eive speculum.' Attributed 
to Augustine, it is really a group of mss., and was 
edited by Mai from one at Rome, and more recently 
from six mss. in the Vienna Corpus script, eccl. 
n. (v.-vi.), o. (vii.), p. (vii.-viii.) fragmenta Sangallensia, at S. 
q. (vii.) cod. Monacensis, at Munich^ formerly at Freising. 
r. (vii. ) cod. Ussherianus, at Trinity College, Dublin. 
B. (vi.) fragmenta Bobiensia, at Milan, formerly at Bobbio. 
t. (v.) fragmenta Bernensia, at Berne. 
V. (vii. ) fragm. Vindobonensia, at Vienna. 
a, (v.-vi.) At Coire, in the Bealisches Museum, part of the same 
MS. as n. 
8. (x.) The Latin of A of the Gk)8pels. 

In the Acts and Catholic Epistles, 

d. m. As in the Gospels, 
e. The Latin of cod. E. 
g. (xiii.) cod. Gigas, a Bohemian ms. at Stockholm. W.H. 
call it holm, and it is often quoted as gig. 
h. (vi.) cod. Floriacencis, also known as f. (Blass), a palim- 
psest fragment at Paris, formerly at Fleury. 
8. (v.-vi.) fragmenta Bobiensia, at Vienna, formerly at Bobbio. 

And in the Catholic Epistles alone — 
f. or ff. =fli of the Gospels. 

In the Pauline Epistles. 

m. As in the Gospels, etc. d.e.f.g. the Latin of D.E.F.G' 
gue. (vi.) cod. Guelpherbytanus, at Wolfenbttttel. 
r. (v.-vi.) cod. Frisingensis, at Munich. 

In the Apocalypse, 

m. Of the Gospels, 
g. h. Of the Acts. 


Vu^ate MSS, 

As there are some hundreds of these, it is impossible to give a 
full list. The best appear to be : — 

am. (viii.) cod. Amiatinus, at Florence. Written in the North 
of England, and sent by Abbot Ceolf rid to the Pope 
in 715, and afterwards remained at Monte Amiata 
(v. Codex Amiatinus, by H. J. White, in Studia 
BiUica, vol. ii.). Wordsworth and White's A. 
cav. (ix.) cod. Cavensis, at La Cava, near Salerno, in Italy, 
written in Spain. Wordsworth's C. 
for. (vi.-vii.) cod. Forojuliensis, at Cividale, in Friuli, but part 
at Prague, and quoted by Tischendorf as prag. 
Wordsworth's J. 
fuld. (vi.) cod. Fuldensis, written for Bishop Victor of Capua, 
and corrected by him. The Gospels are arranged 
continuously in the same order as was employed 
in Taticm^s Diatessaron (v. p. 34). Now at Fulda 
in Prussia. Wordsworth's F. 
tol. (?viii.) cod. Toletanus, formerly at Seville, then at Toledo, 
now at Madrid in the National Library. Words- 
worth's T. 



Nov%mi Testamentu/m, Oraece, ed. viii. maj. Tischendorf. 
Prolegomena to Tischendorf, Gregory. 

The New Testament in the Original Greek. Westcott and Hort. 
Introdiustion to the Criticism of the New Testa/menty ed. iv. 

Codex Bezae, Scrivener. 

Old Latin Biblical Texts. Wordsworth and Others. 
The Sinaitic Palimpsest retrcmscrihed. A. S. Lewis. 
Codex Bezae. Rendel Harris. \^ -, 

Euthaliam>a. Armitage Robinson. I ^^^ 

The Old Latin and the Itala. F. C. Burkitt. {Studies. 

Clement of Alexandria's Biblical Text. P. Barnard. / 
Acta Apostolorum. Blass. 
EvamgeUwm, secwndwm. Lucam. Blass. 
FoiM- Lectwres on the Western Text. Rendel Harris. 
Stichometry. Rendel Harris. 
The Syro-Latin Text. Chase. 
The Syriac Element in Codex Bezae. Chase. 
Agrapha. Resch. 
PoAraUd Texte. Resch. 
TextkritiscJie Studien. Bousset. 
Der Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte. Weiss. 
Chv/rch in the Roman Empire. Ramsay. 
S. Paul the Traveller. Ramsay. 
The Traditional Text. Burgon and Miller. 
Histoire de la Vulgate. Berger. 
The Vulgate. Wordsworth and White. 
Diatessaron of Tatian. Zahn. 

Som^ Criticism of the Text of the New Testament. Salmon. 
Einfiihrung in das Griechische N. T. Nestle. 



In Texte und 




Acts i. 2, 86. 

XV. 20, Tj. 

XV. 29, 85. 

xix. I, 85. 

xxi. 16, 89. 

xxviii. 16, 89. 

Additions to Western Text, 74, 

Aethiopic Version, the, 46. 

African Latin, 26. 

Akhmimic, 42. 

Alcala, 60. 

Alcuin, 31. 

Alexandria, quotations in Clement 

of, 78. 
Alexandrian Text, the, 66. 
Alexandrinus, Codex, 15. 
Am^lineau, M., 43. 
Ammonian Sections, the, 54. 
Ammonius, 54. 
'AKrtXey6/A6i'a, the, 39. 
Antioch, 30, 88. 
Antiochene Text, the, 64. 
Antonia, 40. 
Antony, S., 43. 
Aphraates, 37, 49, 76. 
Apostolos, 51. 
Apparatus Criticus, xo ff. 
Aquileia, 72. 

Arabic Versions of N.T., 46. 

Archetypes, reconstruction of, 6flf. 

Ariston, 46. 

Armenian Version, the, 45, 73. 

Athanasius, 53. 

Augustine, 25, 50. 

Barabbas, Jesus, 80. 

Name of, 80. 

Barnabas, Epistle of, 13. 

Barnard, Mr. P. M., 78. 

Bashmuric Version of N.T., 42. 

Bengel, 61. 

Bentley, Dr. Richard, 61. 

Beza, 60. 

Blass, Professor, 82. 

Bohairic Version, 42. 

Borgianus, Codex, 18. 

Bornemann, 82. 

Burgon, Dean, 63. 

Burkitt, Mr., 27, 79, 80. 

Caesarea, 14 ff., 56, 70. 
Canons, Eusebian, 54. 
Capitulation, 52. 
Cardinal Ximenes, 59. 
Caro, Cardinal Hugo deS., 58. 
Catherine's Monastery, S., 34. 
Causes of Corruption, 3 ff. 
Centones, 75 n. 



Chapter Divisions, 52. 
Characteristics of Western Text, 

Chase, Dr., 39, 84, 87 f. 
Chrysostom, 50. 

quotations in, 64. 

Clement of Alexandria, 49. 

quotations in, 78. 

Clement VIII., Pope, 31. 
Clementine Vulgate, the, 31. 
Codex Alexandrinus, 15. 

Bezae, 16 ff. , 76. 

in the Pauline Epistles, 


Borgianus, 18. 

Ephraemi; 15 f. 

Fuldensis, 34. 

Pamphili, 45. 

Regius, 18. 

Sangallensis, 18. 

Sinaiticus, 4, 12 ff. 

Vaticanus, 13 fif. 

Zacynthius, 18. 

Col. ii. 18, 3, 9. 
Complutensian edition, 60. 

Polyglot, 31. 

Conflations, 38. 
Conjectural emendation, 2, 9, 
Coptic Dialects, 42. 

Versions, 42. 

Corbey S. James, the, 72. 
Correctoria, 31. 
Corrsen, Dr. P., 32. 
Corruption, Causes of, 3 ff. 
Criticism, meaning of Higher, i. 

meaning of Textual, i. 

Cross grouping, 7. 
Cureton, Dr., 33. 
Curetonian Syriac Version, 33 ff. 
Cursives, 11, 19 ff. 

Cyprian, 48. 
Cyril, 49. 

Damasus, Pope, 30. 
Diatessaron, the, 69. 
Didache, i. 2, 77. 

i- 3. n- 

ix. 77. 

quotations in, 77. 

Dittography, 3. 
Dogmatic alterations, 5. 

Ebionites, 35- 
Egyptian, Middle, 42 f. 

Versions, the, 44. 

Elzevir, 60. 

Emendation, conjectural, 
Enaton, the, 40. 
Ephraem, 49, 76. 
Ephraemi, Codex, 15 f. 
Epiphanius, 76, 
Erasmus, 60. 
European Latin, the, 27. 
Eusebian Canons, the, 54. 
Eusebius, 49. 
Euthaliana, 19, 55, 56. 
Euthalius, 45, 56. 

Studien, 55 ff. 

Evangeliarium, 51. 
Evidence, liturgical, 50 ff. 
Patristic, 65. 

Fathers, quotations in, 47 ff. 
Fayoumic, 42. 
Ferrar group, 20, 29. 
Froben, 60. 
Fuldensis, Codex, 34. 

Georgian Version, 46. 
Gibson, Mrs., 34. 


Gothic Version, 46. 
Gregory Nanzianzenus, 50. 
Griesbach, 61 f. 

Harkel, 39. 

Harklean Version, 39 f. 

Harmonies, 5. 

Harmonistic tendency of Western 

Text, 75- 
Harmony, Pre-Tatianic, 86. 
Harris, Dr. Rendel, 75, 84 ff. 
Hexapla of Origen, 40. 
Hierapolis, 39, 40. 
Hippolytus, 49. 
Homeric Centones, 75 n. 
Homoioteleuton, 3. 
Homer, Mr,, 43. 
Hort, Westcott and, 63 ff. 

Interpolations, Latin, 79. 

in Western Text, 79. 

Intrinsic probability, 8. 
Irenaeus, text used by, 76. 
Itacism, 3. 

Itala, Old Latin and the, 27, 80. 
Italic Latin, 27. 

James, the Corbey S. , 72. 
Jerome, m^s. used by, 24 fF., 30; 
Jerusalem Syriac, the, 40. 
Jesus Barabbas, 80. 
John vii. 53, 57. 

viii, 12, 79. 

xiv. 10, II, 81. 

xxi. 7, 87. 

Justin Martyr, 29, 49, 76. 
Justin's use of harmony, 76. 

Ke^aXaia majora, 53. 
Karkaphensian Syriac, the, 41. 

Kirchengeschichte, Zeitschrift fUr, 


Lachmann, C, Edition of N.T., 

Latin Versions of N.T. , 22 £F. 
Lewis Codex, 34 f. 
Lucar, Cyril, 15. 

MSS. , Bilingual, 29. 

Latin, 26 ff. 

Marcion, 6, 29, 49, 76. 
Mark i. 32, 38. 

xvi. 3, 79. 

xvi. 9, 20, 57. 

Maria Dei para, S. , 33. 
Martyr, Justin, 29, 49. 
Matt. vii. 12, 77. 

xii. 9, 81. 

xiii. 54, 4. 

xxvi. 59 ff, 87. 

xxvii. 16, 4. 

Memphitic Version of N.T., 43. 
Mesrop, 45. 
Methodius, 49. 
Middle Egyptian, 42 ff. 
Mill, Dr. John, 61. 
Miller, Prebendary, 68. 
Minuscules, 12, 19. 
Mixed variants, 7. 
Moesinger, 34. 
Mommsen, 90. 
Montanists, the, 85. 
Mopsuestia, Theodore of, 50. 

Nanzianzenus, Gregory, 50. 
Neutral Text, the, 65 ff. 
Nitria, MSS. from, 33, 94. 
Novatian, 48. 



Old Latin and the Itala, 27, 80. 
Old Syriac, the, 33 ff. 
Omissions in Luke xxiv. 80. 

in the Western Text, 74, 

I Origen, 49. 

Pamphili, Codex, 45. 

Pamphilus, 49. 

Pandects, 12. 

Paraphrase in the Western Text, 

Patristic evidence, 65. 

quotations, 47 ff. 

Pauline Epistles, Codex B. in the, 

Pericope Adulterae, 79. 
Peshitto Version of N.T., the, 

33. 38 ff. 
Philoxenian Version of N.T., 39. 
Philoxenus, 39. 
Polycarp, Rural Bishop, 39. 
Pope Clement viii., 31. 

f Damasus, 30. 

Sixtus V. , 31. 

Pre-Tatianic harmony, 86. 
Primasius, 50. 

Quotations in Clement of Alex- 
I andria, 78. 
' in Chrysostom, 64. 

Ramsay, Dr., 84, 89 ff. 

Reconstruction of Archetypes, 
. 6ff. 

' Regius, Codex, 18. 

Rendel Harris, Dr. , 84, 75. 

Resch, Dr., 84, 90 f. 

Robinson, Dr. Armitage, 55. 

S. Gall, mss. at, i8, 95. 

Sahak, 45. 

Sahidic Version, 42 f. 

Sanday, Dr., 88. 

Sangallensis, Codex, 18. 

Scholz, 62. 

Scrivener, Dr., 63. 

Sinai, 34. 

Sinaiticus, Codex, 4, 12 ff. 

Sinaitic Palimpsest retranscribed, 

Sixtus V. , Pope, 31. 
Stephanus, Robert, 31, 60. 
Stichometry, 52, 57 ff. 
Subapostolic Text, 'jj. 
Syriac, the Karkaphensian, 41. 

interpolations, 79. 

the Jerusalem, 40. 

the Old, 33 ff. 

Versions, 33 ff. 

omissions, 80. 

Syrian Text, the, 64. 
Syro-Latin Text, 39. 

Tatian, 33 f., 49. 

Tattam, Archdeacon, 33. 

TertuUian, 48, 76. 

Tendency of Western Text, har- 

monistic, 75. 
Text, the Alexandrian, 66. 
Text, the Antiochene, 64. 
interpolations in the 

Western, 79. 

used by Irenaeus, 76. 

the Neutral, 65 ff. 

omissions in the Western, 


origin of the Western, 81 fif. 

Subapostolic, 77. 

the Syrian, 64, 65. 


Text, Syro-Latin, 39. 

the Western, 65 fF. , 70, 73, 91. 

Texte und Untersuchungen, 90. 
Texts and Studies, 19, 55, 78, 80. 
Textual Criticism, meaning of, i. 
Thebaic Version of N.T., 43. 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 50. 
Theodoret, 37, 69. 
Thomas of Harkel, 39. 
Tischendorf, 63. 
Tobit iv. 15, Tj, 
Transcriptional probability, 8. 
Tregelles, 63. 

Ulfilas, Bishop, 46. 
Uncials, 11 fT. 

Variants, mixed, 7. 
Vatican Sections, 52. 
Vaticanus, Codex, 13 fif. 
Version, the Aethiopic, 46. 
Version, Armenian, 45, 73. 

Georgian, 46. 

Gothic, 46. 

Versions, the Egyptian, 41. 

Latin, 24 ff. 

Syriac, 33 fF. 

Von Dobschiitz, E., 55. 
Vulgate, the, 30 fF. 

Clementine, 31, 

editions of, 32. 

Wordsworth and White's, 


Westcott and Hort, 63 fF. 
Western Text, additions in the, 


characteristics of, 74. 

harraonistic tendency 

of, 75- 
omissions in the, 74, 


origin of the, 81 fif. 

paraphrase in, 74. 

Wordsworth and White's Vul- 
gate, 32. 

Xenaias, 39. 
Ximenes, Cardinal, 59. 

Zahn, 34. 

Zacynthius, Codex, 18. 
Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, 


The English Reformation. By the Rev. W. H. Hutton, B.D., 
Fellow and Tutor of St. John's College, Oxford. Crown 
8vo. IS. 

Contents.— The National Church as a Bond of Union— 
I. What was the Reformation ?— Its History, Henry VII. to 
Charles II.— Its Results.— II. Did it break the Continuity of 
the Church? — (i) Legally and Historically; (a) Doctrine and 
Discipline, Theologically — The Jurisdiction of the Pope — ^The 
Royal Supremacy— The Holy Communion— Holy Orders — 
What is Continuity of Doctrine?— Public Discipline— Private 
Discipline— Fasting — Confession. 

An Introduction to the History of the Church of England; 

from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. 
By H. O. Wakeman, M.A., late Fellow of All Souls' College, 
and Tutor of Keble College, Oxford. 
..Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo. 7^. 6d. '' 

The Christian's Manual. Containing the chief things which a 
Christian ought to Know, Believe, and Do to his Soul's 
Health. By the Rev. W. H. H. Jervois, M.A., Vicar of 
5t.:-Mafy Magdalene's, Munster Square. With a Preface by 
tflr Right Rev. C. C. Grafton, D.D.v' Bishop of Fond-du- 
Lac. Second Edition. i6mo. as. 6d. 

God and Prayer. By Botd Vincent, Bishop-Coadjutor of 
Southern Ohio. Clrown 8vo. as. 

Contents. — Introduction, dealing with the' difficulties con- 
nected with Prayer— How can God hear Prayer? — How can 
God answer Prayer?— Prayers, Why not Answered? 

The Way of Happiness, or the Art of being Happy and making 
others so. Translated and adapted from the French by 
Catherine M. Welby. With a Preface by W. H. Hutton, 
B.D., Fellow of St. JohfTS College, Oxford. Fcap. 8vo. is. 

Daily Footsteps in the Church's Path ; being Daily Readings 
in Prose and Verse arranged in the Order of .the Church's 
Year, from Advent to All Saints' Day, With a Preface by 
the Rev. Thomas B. Dover, M.A., Vicar of Old Maiden, 
Surrey. Fcap. 8vo. 3s. 6d. 

The Early History of the Hebrews. By the Rev. A. H. Sayce, 
Professor of Assyriology at Oxford. Author of ' The Egypt 
of the Hebrews and Herodotos.' Crown 8vo. as. 6d. 

The Egypt of the Hebrews and Herodotos. 

BytheRev.A.H. Sayce. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

London : RmNGTONs, 34 King Street, Covent Garden. 




^AKE, Klrsopp 

The text of the Mew Testament.